Our memory is what gives us the feeling that the past actually exists, but there is no such thing as the past or the future in reality. We only have the present.
Quote:
We can absolutely describe the state of a pot of water heating on the stove using 3 dimensions. We measure change in 3 dimensions, not a 4th because movement from past to present does not mean that movement in time actually occurs.
In the present you have a physical body. Where does it come from in the now? How does it exist in the present? Even if you lost all of your memories, your physical body will exist, and carry signs that it has existed in other "nows"...scars, changes only attributable to duration, physical changes showing childbirth, etc. Please measure those childbirth and duration related changes in your body using only 3 dimensions. Hell, explain the very existence of your physical body using only 3 dimensions...where did it come from, how did it come to be in its current state?
We have physical evidence that the Twin Towers exist (photographs, eyewitness accounts of them, building records). We can locate them on a map. If I go to that location, will I see them? Why not? (Hint, temporal coordinates are still coordinates)
I will grant you that we cannot experience the past or the future in the present, but that doesn't mean that they do not exist. If the past didn't exist, nothing at all would exist. The past is just the previous "nows" with events in sequential order and the future is the subsequent "nows" that we are constantly experiencing.
...the equation for velocity along the time axis must be given as v = dt/dt which is self-referential...
This is one of the more obviously ridiculous assertions made by peacegirl's latest crackpot friend.
The equation for velocity along the time axis 'must' be given as v = dt/dt?
That's clearly crazy; velocity has units of space over time. So clearly velocity can't be just dt/dt.
If you were smart, you'd realise you need to multiply with a constant with units of velocity perhaps. A good choice would be the speed of light, c, since it's a fundamental constant. Then you find v = c for motion through time, which turns out to be pretty much correct if you're not moving through space.
But even that is wrong, because velocity is not defined in special relativity by the coordinate time (the time of an observer at rest with respect to the coordinate system) but by the proper time (denoted by the symbol tau). Then velocities of the position vector (ct, x, y , z) are derivatives with respect to this proper time, tau.
The velocity along the time axis is therefore c * dt/dtau, which is c if proper time matches your coordinate time (i.e. at rest in that coordinate system) but generally less. This mismatch between coordinate time t and proper time tau is the origin of time dilation.
peacegirl, and her new crackpot, don't care about any of this and she'll clearly continue lying and misleading people. What a dishonest rat.
I don't understand all the formal symbolism, but I am inclined to think you're wrong. Your "demonstration" is no better than his because your supporting evidence is not proof.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [You may skip this part if you want to. It does not add to the proof against motion in spacetime. I just use a little math notation for those who are so inclined.]
The above explanation can be rephrased using simple 4-D spacetime manifold math. If the world-line (a path in spacetime) of a moving particle is parameterized thus:
(t,x(t),y(t),z(t))
we can obtain the "4-velocity" of the particle:
(1,dx/dt,dy/dt,dz/dt)
The t-axis or time-axis velocity component is 1, a dimensionless number. Now there are relativists who will insist that it is perfectly acceptable to express velocity in time with a dimensionless number but the rest of us with our head on our shoulders, know that it is not true. We know that a dimensionless number such as 1 has absolutely no meaning in as far as expressing velocity or any sort of change. Velocity must be given in units of velocity such as meters per second or whatever standard units are being used. For this reason, there is no motion in spacetime.
[I receive emails from people who insist that there is nothing wrong with saying that motion in time occurs at the rate of 1 second per second. First of all, dt/dt does not equal 1 second per second. The units cancel out. Second, dt/dt is always the same (1) regardless of the actual rate of velocity.]
Note that I put 4-velocity in quotes above. This is because it is not a velocity at all since nothing can move in spacetime. There is only 3-velocity in 3-D space: (dx/dt,dy/dt,dz/dt), t being a mere evolution parameter. True 4-velocity (dw/dt,dx/dt,dy/dt,dz/dt) would require a 4-D manifold having 4 spatial dimensions and no time dimension. Now that is an interesting idea, four spatial dimensions, an idea I certainly would not object to. But time travel? Absolutely not!
One of the amazing things about this time travel business is that a position in spacetime is usually represented by (ct,x,y,z). What this means, is that every second a body moves exactly 299792458 meters, or a light-second in the fourth dimension. (This tool is convenient in explaining what is called a particle's light cone because it allows the sides of the light cone to slope at 45 degrees.) However, note that, using this convention, the fourth dimension is no longer a temporal dimension but a spatial one. Why? because ct resolves to meters, not seconds. Does this means that time travel is suddenly allowed? Of course not since c is a constant and t is not a variable. It is just that most relativists cannot bring themselves to the point of accepting a fourth spatial dimension. They are forever stuck with spacetime for historical reasons.
There is an unyielding mental barrier that I am still in the process of identifying. I wonder if it is just intellectual inertia or a vestige of the historical origin of relativity, kind of like the way an atom is not really an atom in the literal sense of the word. Somehow, I don't think so. By acknowledging the unchanging nature of spacetime, many relativists would have to admit that they have been teaching crackpot science (the teaching of geometry as an explanation of gravity) from the beginning. That is unacceptable, of course. Still, it is no excuse to conjure up all sorts of voodoo nonsense and retard progress in our understanding of gravity for close to a century.
Note: the representation of a position in spacetime is conventionally given by (ict, x, y, z) where i is the square root of -1, an imaginary number (the crackpottery never ends). However, this is a mere detail, one which does not take away from the changeless nature of spacetime.
Our memory is what gives us the feeling that the past actually exists, but there is no such thing as the past or the future in reality. We only have the present.
Quote:
We can absolutely describe the state of a pot of water heating on the stove using 3 dimensions. We measure change in 3 dimensions, not a 4th because movement from past to present does not mean that movement in time actually occurs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
In the present you have a physical body. Where does it come from in the now?
From my mother's womb which was the same now as everyone else who lived at that time. Now is no longer the now that existed in the past because that now is gone forever. That doesn't put me on a different timeline just because my physical body is here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
How does it exist in the present?
My body exists in the present because it is alive in the present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Even if you lost all of your memories, your physical body will exist, and carry signs that it has existed in other "nows"...scars, changes only attributable to duration, physical changes showing childbirth, etc. Please measure those childbirth and duration related changes in your body using only 3 dimensions. Hell, explain the very existence of your physical body using only 3 dimensions...where did it come from, how did it come to be in its current state?
I never said that events didn't occur. What I am saying is that we need memory to think about them. They don't exist because only the present exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
We have physical evidence that the Twin Towers exist (photographs, eyewitness accounts of them, building records). We can locate them on a map. If I go to that location, will I see them? Why not? (Hint, temporal coordinates are still coordinates)
We can locate where the Twin Towers stood, but they don't stand now, in the present. We have pictures, thoughts, remembrances, but the actual occurrence is gone. Without the pictures and memories, this occurrence would not exist for those who didn't have these remembrances. That's why pictures and memories are important, but it doesn't change the fact that the past doesn't exist on any timeline or dimension. This is science fiction at its best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I will grant you that we cannot experience the past or the future in the present
Well thank you for granting me something. I don't need your approval.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
but that doesn't mean that they do not exist. If the past didn't exist, nothing at all would exist. The past is just the previous "nows" with events in sequential order and the future is the subsequent "nows" that we are constantly experiencing.
You are completely misunderstanding this concept. I didn't say the past didn't occur, but we can only access it through our memories. We cannot go to the past. The present doesn't turn into the past. There is no such thing as the past in reality because the present is where we reside at each and every moment of our lives.
I don't understand all the formal symbolism, but I am inclined to think you're wrong. Your "demonstration" is no better than his because your supporting evidence is not proof.
If you don't understand the formal symbolism, why are you quoting it?
Go crack open a textbook; the definitions are all there. Your crackpots don't understand the basics of the things they're criticising. It says a lot that you draw your support from random nutters on the internet, while we refer to textbooks and papers.
Ultimately, this is the problem you're going to encounter time and time again:
__________________ The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
I don't understand all the formal symbolism, but I am inclined to think you're wrong. Your "demonstration" is no better than his because your supporting evidence is not proof.
If you don't understand the formal symbolism, why are you quoting it?
Go crack open a textbook; the definitions are all there. Your crackpots don't understand the basics of the things they're criticising. It says a lot that you draw your support from random nutters on the internet, while we refer to textbooks and papers.
Ultimately, this is the problem you're going to encounter time and time again:
To call people nutters that don't agree with you is going to come back and bite you in the arse one day. Srsly! What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
To call people nutters that don't agree with you is going to come back and bite you in the arse one day.
Really? Is all this working science going to suddenly stop working?
Nope, I don't think so. We'll keep ignoring Lessans, and science will still work.
__________________ The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
To call people nutters that don't agree with you is going to come back and bite you in the arse one day.
Really? Is all this working science going to suddenly stop working?
Nope, I don't think so. We'll keep ignoring Lessans, and science will still work.
Science will still be deceived.
Deceived? It doesn't matter - it's working. It will be kept, Lessans will be forgotten.
__________________ The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Another stupid head-in-the-sand peacegirl response.
Science works! Look around you at all the gadgets in your house! Look at the computer or tablet you're reading this post on! Think about the Internet that delivered the post to your computer. All these were built by engineers using principles and laws discovered by scientists - and everything works just as it was predicted to!
Meanwhile what works using the principles of Lessanology? Bubkiss.
To call people nutters that don't agree with you is going to come back and bite you in the arse one day.
Really? Is all this working science going to suddenly stop working?
Nope, I don't think so. We'll keep ignoring Lessans, and science will still work.
Science will still be deceived.
Deceived? It doesn't matter - it's working. It will be kept, Lessans will be forgotten.
You don't know that Lessans will be forgotten. You don't even know what his first discovery is about. There is no way to prove that there are different "nows" depending on one's inertial frame of reference, and that clocks slow down because time actually dilates. It might sound great on paper with its mathematical formulations, but it doesn't bear itself out in reality.
It is the spermatozoa and ovum that are carried down from generation to generation.
Neither of those things are carried down through generations.
Of course they are.
No they aren't.
When a boy child is born, he has neither ova nor spermatozoa. He does not inherit either of them from either parent.
He will later produce spermatozoa, once he reaches puberty, but he does not inherit any; none were "carried down" to him from his father (nor from his mother).
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
To call people nutters that don't agree with you is going to come back and bite you in the arse one day.
Really? Is all this working science going to suddenly stop working?
Nope, I don't think so. We'll keep ignoring Lessans, and science will still work.
Science will still be deceived.
Deceived? It doesn't matter - it's working. It will be kept, Lessans will be forgotten.
You don't know that Lessans will be forgotten. You don't even know what his first discovery is about. There is no way to prove that there are different "nows" depending on one's inertial frame of reference, and that clocks slow down because time actually dilates. It might sound great on paper with its mathematical formulations, but it doesn't bear itself out in reality.
It doesn't matter if there's no way to 'prove' it - it works!
Lessans doesn't work. It doesn't do anything. It actually makes our predictions worse. Nobody will remember him. You think anyone will read this thread when you leave? This is the most attention Lessans has ever had, and all you've done is convince everyone here that he was pretty stupid.
Also, I learned dogs can recognise their masters from photographs. I'd never looked into the research before, and assumed they wouldn't, but it seems they do!
__________________ The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
It is the spermatozoa and ovum that are carried down from generation to generation.
Neither of those things are carried down through generations.
Of course they are.
No they aren't.
When a boy child is born, he has neither ova nor spermatozoa. He does not inherit either of them from either parent.
He will later produce spermatozoa, once he reaches puberty, but he does not inherit any; none were "carried down" to him from his father (nor from his mother).
I didn't say a child would have ova or spermatazoa at birth, but when it develops at puberty it would have certain genetic traits. This germinal substance that is carried on from generation to generation holds the potential for the circle of life to continue on.
Then it's incorrect -- indeed nonsensical -- to say that spermatozoa and ova "are carried down from generation to generation." Since, as you just pointed out, they aren't.
If you mean to say that genes are passed from parent to offspring, then say so. That genes are passed from parents to offspring is a wholly uncontroversial statement. (Though inheritance is not just genes, and there is far more to the developmental process than simple genetic inheritance.)
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
To call people nutters that don't agree with you is going to come back and bite you in the arse one day.
Really? Is all this working science going to suddenly stop working?
Nope, I don't think so. We'll keep ignoring Lessans, and science will still work.
Science will still be deceived.
Deceived? It doesn't matter - it's working. It will be kept, Lessans will be forgotten.
You don't know that Lessans will be forgotten. You don't even know what his first discovery is about. There is no way to prove that there are different "nows" depending on one's inertial frame of reference, and that clocks slow down because time actually dilates. It might sound great on paper with its mathematical formulations, but it doesn't bear itself out in reality.
It doesn't matter if there's no way to 'prove' it - it works!
Lessans doesn't work. It doesn't do anything.
Oh really? So what is his first discovery. Forget the eyes for a second. What are the two principles that lead to the two-sided equation? I'm sure you know that much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
It actually makes our predictions worse.
What predictions are you talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Nobody will remember him.
To your utter dismay they most certainly will, if his discovery turns out to be genuine. Don't count your chickens quite yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
You think anyone will read this thread when you leave?
I hope not. It's the most drawn out unproductive thread ever. All they need to do is study the book, which is 3 times shorter than this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
This is the most attention Lessans has ever had, and all you've done is convince everyone here that he was pretty stupid.
That's not my fault. People have given a false portrayal of his character and his life's work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Also, I learned dogs can recognise their masters from photographs. I'd never looked into the research before, and assumed they wouldn't, but it seems they do!
Put your money where your mouth is and show me the proof. There is none.
Then it's incorrect -- indeed nonsensical -- to say that spermatozoa and ova "are carried down from generation to generation." Since, as you just pointed out, they aren't.
If you mean to say that genes are passed from parent to offspring, then say so. That genes are passed from parents to offspring is a wholly uncontroversial statement. (Though inheritance is not just genes, and there is far more to the developmental process than simple genetic inheritance.)
Thanks for the clarification. We're in agreement that genes are passed from parent to offspring as children reach puberty. This is what allows the circle of life to continue on. That's what he meant by germinal substance; the substance (the sperm and egg that contain the potential for life) that is carried along from generation to generation.
Another stupid head-in-the-sand peacegirl response.
Science works! Look around you at all the gadgets in your house! Look at the computer or tablet you're reading this post on! Think about the Internet that delivered the post to your computer. All these were built by engineers using principles and laws discovered by scientists - and everything works just as it was predicted to!
Meanwhile what works using the principles of Lessanology? Bubkiss.
Ceptimus, I am not against science. Although people tell me this work is not scientific because he didn't start out with a hypothesis and check it empirically, this knowledge is actually based in science. I am only against the unproven belief that time does things it cannot do. I can't help that this is considered blasphemy because Einstein was known to be the greatest physicist of all time. What's wrong is wrong! We only have the present which is a gift once you understand his chapter on death. There is no such thing as the past or future because there is no dimension called time.
To call people nutters that don't agree with you is going to come back and bite you in the arse one day.
Really? Is all this working science going to suddenly stop working?
Nope, I don't think so. We'll keep ignoring Lessans, and science will still work.
Science will still be deceived.
Deceived? It doesn't matter - it's working. It will be kept, Lessans will be forgotten.
You don't know that Lessans will be forgotten. You don't even know what his first discovery is about. There is no way to prove that there are different "nows" depending on one's inertial frame of reference, and that clocks slow down because time actually dilates. It might sound great on paper with its mathematical formulations, but it doesn't bear itself out in reality.
It doesn't matter if there's no way to 'prove' it - it works!
Lessans doesn't work. It doesn't do anything.
Oh really? So what is his first discovery. Forget the eyes for a second. What are the two principles that lead to the two-sided equation? I'm sure you know that much.
I've no idea - you won't tell me! You just waffle word salads when anyone asks.
Quote:
What predictions are you talking about?
Any involving relativity now you've ditched it. How about we start with observed muon counts at sea level?
Quote:
I hope not. It's the most drawn out unproductive thread ever. All they need to do is study the book, which is 3 times shorter than this thread.
So how many people have studied the book so far? Because all I've seen are people laughing at it.
Quote:
That's not my fault. People have given a false portrayal of his character and his life's work.
It's half your fault - you are arrogant, ignorant and dishonest. The other half is that Lessans was arrogant and ignorant.
Quote:
Put your money where your mouth is and show me the proof. There is none.
Proof isn't for science.
__________________ The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Re: A revolution in thought
My body exists in the present because it is alive in the present.
Linear Mode
