"You Seek The Knowledge Of The Gods, Yet Have The Wisdom Of Little Children"

Fascinating technology, great pix, thanks for sharing, Shumi.

- But i can't help forget the fact that the Hubble had a fundamental flaw (the mirror was incorrect) in spite of the best minds of a generation.

Hope they know what they're doin'

With a particle accelerator, it is so you can get it going faster and faster and observe it more conveniently. A sphere has the smallest surface area for a given amount of material.

There is "progression of events" -- and that's where it ends.

There is matter and space; matter can be at rest or in motion relative to some reference point; there can be interactions between different "matters" of different sizes (intergalactic down to the smallest sub-atomic particles). It all can be quite complex and require in depth research to study, but the basic concept is simple enough.

"Time" is a mental construction we humans use to measure and understand the "progression of events" and the relative rates of motion between "matters."

"Time" does not exist any more than any other "unit of measure" exists.

The non-objective thinkers in this world can "ask" their silly questions (the classic is the nonsense, "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?") -- they can pretend they are being "profound" with their "questions," but all they are doing is "playing mental games," or showing that they cannot differentiate between an object (or concept) and the symbols (language) we use to describe that object.

When someone starts talking about "space-time" you can be sure you are dealing with some kind of mental conman, or an idiot.

How do you account for the difference between two watches perfectly synced. One is put on the earth's surface and one in a plane flying overhead. After a long "progression of events", the watches are no longer in sync. Without an absolute tie between space and time, this couldn't occur. Time may be part of 'space', or linked with space, but it's certainly not void of all definition and meaning.

So which am I? You have the nerve to state something like that, might as well finalize which one of those two things I am.

yeh - like Albert Einstein.

this is one of the most confused posts I've read here yet.

Load 'ict' into your 4-vector, bub

no. time is a dimension. you have confused the measurements of dimensions, which are admittedly random, with dimensions themselves.

Here, I'll illustrate.

Length is a dimension.
Inch is a unit of measure.

Time is a dimension.
Minute is a unit of measure.

Dimensions are absolute.

Measurements are merely descriptors.

If you would like to learn more, I recommend this book. It's challenging, but rewarding.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1258940834.jpg

Things have dimensions. There is no such thing as a dimension.

If something exists, it exists with attributes that can be measured. Measurements are comparisons of "dimensions." The dimension itself does not "exist" alone, absent of the thing -- other than as a mental construction. We use dimensions in our heads to help us understand the things that exist.

Time -- as you note -- is a "dimension" -- a mental construction we humans use to compare the relative rates of matter in motion. If I use the term "one second" to describe some phenomenon, I am making a comparison between the relative rates of motion of the earth's rotation (as it relates to the position of the sun) and the phenomenon being described.

To talk about "time" as if it were some "thing" is just as ridiculous as trying to talk about "lengthness" as if it were a "thing." But that is exactly what some modern theoretical physicists are suggesting be done with their use of their "concept" of "space-time."

It is simple BS.

To paraphrase a comment Ayn Rand made through a character in The Fountainhead (proposing how the "vandals" destroy great things in a society), "One does not destroy greatness by an outright attack against it, but by enshrining mediocrity."

That just about describes the situation with Albert Einstein. He was enshrined for the public as "genius," but was mediocrity, at best.

You make that decision for yourself.

Believe in mysticism, but claim it is "science" -- then you are either some sort of intellectual conman, or an idiot allowing yourself to be lead around by intellectual conmen.

And yes, I do have the nerve to stand up and call BS, BS.

Oh no, you decided to call me one of two horrible things, you need to define yourself. Tell me whether I'm an idiot or trying to lie to you. I've had people tell me that I am studying crap, and I've had people tell me that nature is trying to fool us, but I've NEVER had someone dare to call me a con man. That's a whole new level.

In reality, there can be no "two watches perfectly synced." When making measurements -- and dealing with dimensions of things that exist -- we deal with tolerances.

The description of your "experiment" starts with an error -- the idea that two watches can be "perfectly synced."

I am in no way suggesting that time is "void of all definition and meaning" -- I am arguing that "time" is a mental construction we use to compare, understand and communicate about certain aspects (relative rates of motion) in the universe.

Things have "length" as a dimension, but there is no "lengthness" existing absent the things.

So to, the relationships between things (in motion) can be described with "time," but there is no "timeness" absent of the things.

Again (I don't know why you didn't understand me the first time I said it), you make the decision about what you want to be.

BTW, when quoting my line, you totally missed the reference.

Leonard McCoy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know what competentone is smoking sown in South Carolina, but I'd like to just try a tiny smidgen of it.

sammytard, you just don't get it. It doesn't destroy the earth precisely because that guy from the future is sabotaging it. He knew it could destroy us, but...

... he completed the mission.

Please try to keep up. :eek: :p ;)

Yeah, that was Friday night... what the news reports didn't tell you is that when they got there, it was running backwards. I was wondering why Jack Ruby materialized in my living room for a coupla minutes... now I know.

It's a Stargate... get used to it. Geraldo will be reporting from the future within a year... trust me on this.
:cool:

I've been having the same problems with my "Small" Hadron Collider, I have out in the garage. Have to make a run to Radio Shack, and to Home Depot for some Gorilla glue....

It is precisely the people who are "smoking stuff" who are not "getting it." Their minds are in a fog.

Geometry can give an example of the sort of "fog" some people are living in. There are great "thinking tools" used in geometry that can help us understand the physical world. We have concepts like points, lines, and planes that are imaginary tools we use when working with certain mathematical calculations -- which can, in turn, help us understand the real world. But I have heard people make amazing errors when attempting to apply the principles from geometry to the real world.

Example:

In geometry a "point" is considered to be dimensionless. We can have two points on a line, continue to cut the distance between them in half, and although the points will continue to move closer to each other, they will never touch each other.

I've heard people take this idea of a dimensionless point from geometry and say (thinking they are being profound): "If I'm standing a certain distance away from a wall, then start moving toward that wall, halving the distance from the wall with each move I make, I will continue to move closer to the wall, but will never actually reach it!"

The error they make is attempting to apply an imaginary concept -- the dimensionless "point" from geometry -- to the real things in the world that exist with dimensions and are measured within tolerances. The person and wall, both made of atoms, could be said to have reached each other when the distance between them is smaller than the diameter of the outer-most atoms of their structure.

People make a similar type of error when dealing with the concept of "time." Time is a "thinking tool" that can have applications in physics that help us understand the physical world, but one needs to be careful when transitioning between the theoretical concepts being used and the actual physical world made up of real, dimensional things.

Some of the ideas modern physicists have tried to thrust on the public are so ridiculous (things like "space time" or "warping time"), that I simply cannot accept that they represent "innocent errors."

So, because you watch a little "science-y" TV or read a poorly written book, you've now decided that physicists are con men and lying to the world? You're a piece of work...

Here, let me totally break this down for you:
1) I'm a idiot
Lets see...if someone looks at the world around them, thinks about it, questions it, does some experimenting, makes some logical conclusions, educates himself to be able to make more logical conclusions, then tries to understand the fullness of what comes out of that...is THAT you're definition of "idiot"???

2) I'm a con man:
Um...who am I conning? A con man is someone who lies and coerces someone else to gain something from them. Who am I coercing, and what am I gaining? In fact, which physicist sat there and told the world that "this is how it is, and because of that, you gotta give me money"? I've never heard of a physicist who thinks that everyone needs to understand these things, or forces said knowledge on anyone. How can such a person then be a "con man"? You have strange and disturbing definitions for words.

So, since I'm neither an idiot nor a con man, you need to find something else.

Now, lets go on to your unreasonable assumptions about "time".
1) Because you don't like the terms "warping of time" (which is actually "warping of spacetime", but hey, details, right? big deal...). So, you don't like that term, so you will declare thousands of people as idiots because YOU don't understand it. We'll ignore the fact that "warping of spacetime" is something used to help our minds kinda understand the larger actions going on, not that there is some actual fabric stretched across the Universe getting bent up. You are aware that all of those pictures in the books, and pretty graphics on Discovery Channel...those are all fake, right? They're not literal absolute descriptions of the Universe, right?

You do understand that, right?

Hmmm...

2) Do you have an actual problem with time, or with our ENUMERATING it, or with our acceptance that if you put one second after another second, you have 2 seconds, not 1.537 seconds? Should we call them glabbles, not seconds? Do you not like the idea that we can describe fully the position of something in our Universe using 3 orthogonal vectors, which define the Cartesian coordinate system? Do you not like the naming standard of "XYZ", or do you not like that you seem to think that by calling it "XYZ" that we have declared it the One and True Coordinate System? you do know that there are an infinite number of Cartesian coordinate systems, and we can use any of them at any time? We can even use OTHER coordinate systems...whenever we want! Seems that this is the opposite of your assumptions about us conning people about the Universe...

3) Do you think that the connection between space and time is wrong? Are speed, acceleration and velocity based in fallacy? Do you think that an object traveling along a flat table might travel a different distance in any two time ticks, since they're kinda all humanly constructed by us idiots and con men?

4) You keep talking about time, and how it's related to space...which tells me you have NO CLUE what you're talking about. Time is not a spacial dimension. It's not the fourth dimension. Now, the total package "ct", that is, time multiplied by the speed of light...that does have the characteristics of being a dimension (it's orthogonal to XYZ, and can be used to further delineate a specific singular point in 4-space), but it's never really USED as the 4th dimension, because it's not. However, if you read some simplistic magazine articles (as you obviously did), then you might *assume*, through ignorance, that time is the 4th dimension. You'd be wrong.

5) Do you dispute the concept of the "arrow of time" as well? Do you think that any process in the Universe could work just fine run backwards along the time vector? Do you call us idiots and con men for stating that such a thing is wrong, and that there is most definitely an arrow of time integrated into all of nature, and that almost nothing can actually be run backwards?


Basically, you don't have the information of experience to understand this, you then make rash and rude statements about others who DO have the information and experience to understand it. It'll be interesting to see how defensive you get now, and how random your statements are (you're posts have devolved in this thread).

You guys are missing the plus side here: with E != mc^2 no more worrying about nuclear weapons.