Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
TomGee wrote:

Everything you say above is correct, except that now we have the
opportunity to know just what time really is, if we are willing to
accept it. SR's resolution to the so-called Twin Paradox proves that
time passes slower for objects in faster motion than other compared
objects. I contend that the reason for that is because time is a
property of matter and it passes inversely proportional to a discrete
object's state of motion.

1) Your contention is not necessary,


So do you disagree with it? Even if, as you say, SR already explained
it, why not compare it with SR's resolution to see which side is less
complex and controversial? You're not closed minded, or jealous, are
you?


since SR already explains the
reason for this (different frames of references and the geometry of the
fourdimensional spacetime, i.e. Minkowski space).

All of which are mathematical constructs used to calculate reality,
but not reality itself. MInkowski space is imaginary diagrams, 4d
spacetime is the same as our universe where we have length, width,
depth, and time, and spacetime is a non-existent place which lives
only in our minds.


2) Where do you get your idea that "time is a property of matter" from?

From the SR inference that the resolution of the Twin Paradox has to
do with the difference in speed between the twins during the trip. I
decided way back to think through the issue of what time is, since I
could not find a satisfactory answer (to me) anywhere. I realized
that the answer was already there, it just had not been recognized as
yet. I embarked on a campaign to let everyone know about my
discovery, but so far in Usenet all I have been able to do is to get
flamed to a crisp by some and to gain negligible interest by others.
I wrote an essay which I published through Tyro Press at
which I passed around for feedback to all I know
and have met, but even physics profs have not given me relevant
feedback. I decided to respond to posts with my ideas as they relate
to the many different subjects posted here, and that way, all my ideas
would eventually be published here for all to look at and perhaps
agree with them.


Do you want to imply that for things which do not consist of matter


I cannot believe there is anything visible to us which is massless
until and unless E=mc^2 is overthrown. I believe the formula reveals
that mass and energy are interdependent and that we cannot have one
without the other.

Experiments show that under the principle of Uncertainty, we can
assume that a photon is massless, even though experiments prove
otherwise. Uncertainty not withstanding, however, the massless photon
is proven only as a "special case", which is the same as the "proof"
of an inductive analysis. Inductions are valid only as special cases,
or where some accommodation for the lack of deductive reasoning is
permitted.


(i.e. light), time dilation does not apply? That would contradict the
Doppler effect...


Only if it is true that light is massless. To do that, you must
overthrown E=mc^2. Qm, as I understand it, has managed to make the
photon massless by ignoring the energy of momentum, or by claiming the
energy is massless. But if E=mc^2 is always true, and it strong
inference that mass and energy are interdependent is true, the
massless photon is a special case valid only by inductive analysis.


3) Time passes *inversely proportional* to the state of motion??? That
*totally* contradicts SR!


You need to show where it does that, as the Twin Paradox strongly
infers that time passed inversely proportional for the twin who moved
faster at times than the Earthbound twin. That means that the faster
the spaceship moved, the slower time passed for it compared to the
passage of time for the Earth. From there, it also follows that in at
least one sense, time is absolute.


4) Why did you say "discrete" object? How is that relevant here?


It is important because time rates apply to matter and matter can be
one particle or it can include an entire galaxy when their movements
are considered as a whole, or discrete, system. The Earth is a system
and the spaceship is a system in the Twin Paradox because they each
are not fundamental matter. They are compared as systems since
everyone on Earth is in constant acceleration wrt the Earth, and the
twin in the spaceship is part of that system because s/he is at
constant acceleration with the ship. It is necessary for us to define
the discreteness of the objects/systems to which we refer in order to
compare the rate of the passage of time.
TomGee

"TomGee" wrote in message
om...
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
TomGee wrote:

Everything you say above is correct, except that now we have the
opportunity to know just what time really is, if we are willing to
accept it. SR's resolution to the so-called Twin Paradox proves that
time passes slower for objects in faster motion than other compared
objects. I contend that the reason for that is because time is a
property of matter and it passes inversely proportional to a discrete
object's state of motion.

1) Your contention is not necessary,


So do you disagree with it? Even if, as you say, SR already explained
it, why not compare it with SR's resolution to see which side is less
complex and controversial? You're not closed minded, or jealous, are
you?


since SR already explains the
reason for this (different frames of references and the geometry of the
fourdimensional spacetime, i.e. Minkowski space).

All of which are mathematical constructs used to calculate reality,
but not reality itself.

Please do tell what the difference between realty and reality itself is.

MInkowski space is imaginary diagrams, 4d
spacetime is the same as our universe where we have length, width,
depth, and time, and spacetime is a non-existent place which lives
only in our minds.

Point out one thing that does not live in our minds, or are the philosophers
who can not refute soliphism all idiots?

Bill



2) Where do you get your idea that "time is a property of matter" from?

From the SR inference that the resolution of the Twin Paradox has to
do with the difference in speed between the twins during the trip. I
decided way back to think through the issue of what time is, since I
could not find a satisfactory answer (to me) anywhere. I realized
that the answer was already there, it just had not been recognized as
yet. I embarked on a campaign to let everyone know about my
discovery, but so far in Usenet all I have been able to do is to get
flamed to a crisp by some and to gain negligible interest by others.
I wrote an essay which I published through Tyro Press at
which I passed around for feedback to all I know
and have met, but even physics profs have not given me relevant
feedback. I decided to respond to posts with my ideas as they relate
to the many different subjects posted here, and that way, all my ideas
would eventually be published here for all to look at and perhaps
agree with them.


Do you want to imply that for things which do not consist of matter


I cannot believe there is anything visible to us which is massless
until and unless E=mc^2 is overthrown. I believe the formula reveals
that mass and energy are interdependent and that we cannot have one
without the other.

Experiments show that under the principle of Uncertainty, we can
assume that a photon is massless, even though experiments prove
otherwise. Uncertainty not withstanding, however, the massless photon
is proven only as a "special case", which is the same as the "proof"
of an inductive analysis. Inductions are valid only as special cases,
or where some accommodation for the lack of deductive reasoning is
permitted.


(i.e. light), time dilation does not apply? That would contradict the
Doppler effect...


Only if it is true that light is massless. To do that, you must
overthrown E=mc^2. Qm, as I understand it, has managed to make the
photon massless by ignoring the energy of momentum, or by claiming the
energy is massless. But if E=mc^2 is always true, and it strong
inference that mass and energy are interdependent is true, the
massless photon is a special case valid only by inductive analysis.


3) Time passes *inversely proportional* to the state of motion??? That
*totally* contradicts SR!


You need to show where it does that, as the Twin Paradox strongly
infers that time passed inversely proportional for the twin who moved
faster at times than the Earthbound twin. That means that the faster
the spaceship moved, the slower time passed for it compared to the
passage of time for the Earth. From there, it also follows that in at
least one sense, time is absolute.


4) Why did you say "discrete" object? How is that relevant here?


It is important because time rates apply to matter and matter can be
one particle or it can include an entire galaxy when their movements
are considered as a whole, or discrete, system. The Earth is a system
and the spaceship is a system in the Twin Paradox because they each
are not fundamental matter. They are compared as systems since
everyone on Earth is in constant acceleration wrt the Earth, and the
twin in the spaceship is part of that system because s/he is at
constant acceleration with the ship. It is necessary for us to define
the discreteness of the objects/systems to which we refer in order to
compare the rate of the passage of time.
TomGee

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
"TomGee" wrote in message
om...

All of which are mathematical constructs used to calculate reality,
but not reality itself.

Please do tell what the difference between realty and reality itself is.


"Realty" has to do with property ownership, while "reality itself" has
to do with the quality or state of being real. Please note that I did
not mean to say there is a difference between reality and reality
itself, but that math constructs make calculations about reality but
do not necessarily show reality. Einstein's static universe is an
example.


MInkowski space is imaginary diagrams, 4d
spacetime is the same as our universe where we have length, width,
depth, and time, and spacetime is a non-existent place which lives
only in our minds.

Point out one thing that does not live in our minds, or are the philosophers
who can not refute soliphism all idiots?

Bill


I did not say something does not live in our minds, Bill, I simply
pointed out that some things that live in our minds live there only
and are not real people, places, or things.

Solipsism is fine for philosophers, but it seems to be an
unfalsifiable theory for science and so it doesn't belong here. I
like to think that a sound is made when a tree falls in a forest. And
that the Sun rises in the East whether or not there is anyone around
to see it. And that there is reality beyond the senses of Man, that
it has been around long before Man and will be here long after Man has
gone. Solipsism is for philosophy what the idea of the cosmos
circling the Earth was for science: An egocentric view of existence.
That is why science and philosophy should never marry, as they can
only breed false reality.

2) Where do you get your idea that "time is a property of matter" from?

From the SR inference that the resolution of the Twin Paradox has to
do with the difference in speed between the twins during the trip. I
decided way back to think through the issue of what time is, since I
could not find a satisfactory answer (to me) anywhere. I realized
that the answer was already there, it just had not been recognized as
yet. I embarked on a campaign to let everyone know about my
discovery, but so far in Usenet all I have been able to do is to get
flamed to a crisp by some and to gain negligible interest by others.
I wrote an essay which I published through Tyro Press at
which I passed around for feedback to all I know
and have met, but even physics profs have not given me relevant
feedback. I decided to respond to posts with my ideas as they relate
to the many different subjects posted here, and that way, all my ideas
would eventually be published here for all to look at and perhaps
agree with them.

TomGee wrote:
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...


[snip]


Please note that I did
not mean to say there is a difference between reality and reality
itself, but that math constructs make calculations about reality but
do not necessarily show reality.

"Math constructs" are used to *describe* reality. Do you disagree with
that, or do you think that there is a difference between "describe
reality" and "show reality"?


[snip]


MInkowski space is imaginary diagrams, 4d
spacetime is the same as our universe where we have length, width,
depth, and time, and spacetime is a non-existent place which lives
only in our minds.

If spacetime is the same as our universe, then how can you say that
spacetime is a non-existence "place"?



[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

"TomGee" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"TomGee" wrote in message
om...

All of which are mathematical constructs used to calculate reality,
but not reality itself.

Please do tell what the difference between realty and reality itself is.


"Realty" has to do with property ownership, while "reality itself" has
to do with the quality or state of being real.

What is being real?

Please note that I did
not mean to say there is a difference between reality and reality
itself, but that math constructs make calculations about reality but
do not necessarily show reality. Einstein's static universe is an
example.


MInkowski space is imaginary diagrams, 4d
spacetime is the same as our universe where we have length, width,
depth, and time, and spacetime is a non-existent place which lives
only in our minds.

Point out one thing that does not live in our minds, or are the
philosophers
who can not refute soliphism all idiots?

Bill


I did not say something does not live in our minds, Bill, I simply
pointed out that some things that live in our minds live there only
and are not real people, places, or things.

How do you distinguish between the two?


Solipsism is fine for philosophers, but it seems to be an
unfalsifiable theory for science and so it doesn't belong here.


Yes it is - and so is what you write which is why it is of no value.

I
like to think that a sound is made when a tree falls in a forest.


What you are saying is you like to think reality exits external to us. But
that is not a falsifiable position for all sorts of reasons, not the least
of which is philosophers can not even agree on what reality is.

And
that the Sun rises in the East whether or not there is anyone around
to see it. And that there is reality beyond the senses of Man, that
it has been around long before Man and will be here long after Man has
gone. Solipsism is for philosophy what the idea of the cosmos
circling the Earth was for science: An egocentric view of existence.
That is why science and philosophy should never marry, as they can
only breed false reality.

Basically your rubbish has the same objective worth as any belief system -
namely none - and is not the proper domain of science which is concerned
with one thing only - correspondence with experiment - not with semantic
quibbling about the difference between 'reality' and 'reality itself.'

Bill



2) Where do you get your idea that "time is a property of matter"
from?

From the SR inference that the resolution of the Twin Paradox has to
do with the difference in speed between the twins during the trip. I
decided way back to think through the issue of what time is, since I
could not find a satisfactory answer (to me) anywhere. I realized
that the answer was already there, it just had not been recognized as
yet. I embarked on a campaign to let everyone know about my
discovery, but so far in Usenet all I have been able to do is to get
flamed to a crisp by some and to gain negligible interest by others.
I wrote an essay which I published through Tyro Press at
which I passed around for feedback to all I know
and have met, but even physics profs have not given me relevant
feedback. I decided to respond to posts with my ideas as they relate
to the many different subjects posted here, and that way, all my ideas
would eventually be published here for all to look at and perhaps
agree with them.

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
"TomGee" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"TomGee" wrote in message

...to do with the quality or state of being real.

What is being real?


Apparently, philosophers haven't a clue; but in physics, it is matter
having positive energy and thus being visible to us.


MInkowski space is imaginary diagrams, 4d
spacetime is the same as our universe where we have length, width,
depth, and time, and spacetime is a non-existent place which lives
only in our minds.

Point out one thing that does not live in our minds, or are the
philosophers
who can not refute soliphism all idiots?

Bill


I did not say something does not live in our minds, Bill, I simply
pointed out that some things that live in our minds live there only
and are not real people, places, or things.

How do you distinguish between the two?


The same ways that you do.


Solipsism is fine for philosophers, but it seems to be an
unfalsifiable theory for science and so it doesn't belong here.


Yes it is - and so is what you write which is why it is of no value.


Oooh! Root Canal Hit!


I
like to think that a sound is made when a tree falls in a forest.


What you are saying is you like to think reality exits external to us. But
that is not a falsifiable position for all sorts of reasons, not the least
of which is philosophers can not even agree on what reality is.


Yeah, well, that's precisely why I decided to not be a philosopher.
Evidently you are a philosopher and so for you reality cannot exist
external to us, but for physicists, reality is falsifiable so far, and
that which has not yet been deemed falsifiable may yet become so in
the future.


And
that the Sun rises in the East whether or not there is anyone around
to see it. And that there is reality beyond the senses of Man, that
it has been around long before Man and will be here long after Man has
gone. Solipsism is for philosophy what the idea of the cosmos
circling the Earth was for science: An egocentric view of existence.
That is why science and philosophy should never marry, as they can
only breed false reality.

Basically your rubbish has the same objective worth as any belief system -
namely none - and is not the proper domain of science which is concerned
with one thing only - correspondence with experiment - not with semantic
quibbling about the difference between 'reality' and 'reality itself.'


You mean that you have come to believe philosophic rubbish like yours
is real science?


2) Where do you get your idea that "time is a property of matter"
from?

From the SR inference that the resolution of the Twin Paradox has to
do with the difference in speed between the twins during the trip. I
decided way back to think through the issue of what time is, since I
could not find a satisfactory answer (to me) anywhere. I realized
that the answer was already there, it just had not been recognized as
yet. I embarked on a campaign to let everyone know about my
discovery, but so far in Usenet all I have been able to do is to get
flamed to a crisp by some and to gain negligible interest by others.
I wrote an essay which I published through Tyro Press at
which I passed around for feedback to all I know
and have met, but even physics profs have not given me relevant
feedback. I decided to respond to posts with my ideas as they relate
to the many different subjects posted here, and that way, all my ideas
would eventually be published here for all to look at and perhaps
agree with them.

"TomGee" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"TomGee" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"TomGee" wrote in message

...to do with the quality or state of being real.

What is being real?


Apparently, philosophers haven't a clue; but in physics, it is matter
having positive energy and thus being visible to us.


MInkowski space is imaginary diagrams, 4d
spacetime is the same as our universe where we have length, width,
depth, and time, and spacetime is a non-existent place which lives
only in our minds.

Point out one thing that does not live in our minds, or are the
philosophers
who can not refute soliphism all idiots?

Bill


I did not say something does not live in our minds, Bill, I simply
pointed out that some things that live in our minds live there only
and are not real people, places, or things.

How do you distinguish between the two?


The same ways that you do.


Solipsism is fine for philosophers, but it seems to be an
unfalsifiable theory for science and so it doesn't belong here.


Yes it is - and so is what you write which is why it is of no value.


Oooh! Root Canal Hit!


I
like to think that a sound is made when a tree falls in a forest.


What you are saying is you like to think reality exits external to us.
But
that is not a falsifiable position for all sorts of reasons, not the
least
of which is philosophers can not even agree on what reality is.


Yeah, well, that's precisely why I decided to not be a philosopher.

Then do not discuss the semantic difference between 'reality' and 'reality
itself.'

Evidently you are a philosopher and so for you reality cannot exist
external to us,

That is not what I said - I said it was not a falsifiable position and so is
not really in the domain of science. Learn to read English.

but for physicists, reality is falsifiable so far,
and
that which has not yet been deemed falsifiable may yet become so in
the future.

For physicists what reality is far too slippery a concept to be of any
value.



And
that the Sun rises in the East whether or not there is anyone around
to see it. And that there is reality beyond the senses of Man, that
it has been around long before Man and will be here long after Man has
gone. Solipsism is for philosophy what the idea of the cosmos
circling the Earth was for science: An egocentric view of existence.
That is why science and philosophy should never marry, as they can
only breed false reality.

Basically your rubbish has the same objective worth as any belief
system -
namely none - and is not the proper domain of science which is concerned
with one thing only - correspondence with experiment - not with semantic
quibbling about the difference between 'reality' and 'reality itself.'


You mean that you have come to believe philosophic rubbish like yours
is real science?

Saying that a semantic discussion on the difference between 'reality' and
'reality itself' is not science but philosophy and that science is concerned
with correspondence with experiment is not supporting philosophical word
quibbling such as yours.

Bill



2) Where do you get your idea that "time is a property of
matter"
from?

From the SR inference that the resolution of the Twin Paradox has
to
do with the difference in speed between the twins during the trip.
I
decided way back to think through the issue of what time is, since
I
could not find a satisfactory answer (to me) anywhere. I realized
that the answer was already there, it just had not been recognized
as
yet. I embarked on a campaign to let everyone know about my
discovery, but so far in Usenet all I have been able to do is to
get
flamed to a crisp by some and to gain negligible interest by
others.
I wrote an essay which I published through Tyro Press at
which I passed around for feedback to all I
know
and have met, but even physics profs have not given me relevant
feedback. I decided to respond to posts with my ideas as they
relate
to the many different subjects posted here, and that way, all my
ideas
would eventually be published here for all to look at and perhaps
agree with them.

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
TomGee wrote:

Please note that I did
not mean to say there is a difference between reality and reality
itself, but that math constructs make calculations about reality but
do not necessarily show reality.

"Math constructs" are used to *describe* reality. Do you disagree with
that,


No. I agree with that.


or do you think that there is a difference between "describe
reality" and "show reality"?


Yes. The former is/can be a description of it but not necessarily
true, while the latter can be accepted as true.

MInkowski space is imaginary diagrams, 4d
spacetime is the same as our universe where we have length, width,
depth, and time, and spacetime is a non-existent place which lives
only in our minds.

If spacetime is the same as our universe, then how can you say that
spacetime is a non-existence "place"?


It is the same only in that it has 3 dimensions plus a time dimension
the same as our universe, but in our U., space and time are not
interdependent.
TomGee

TomGee wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

TomGee wrote:


Please note that I did
not mean to say there is a difference between reality and reality
itself, but that math constructs make calculations about reality but
do not necessarily show reality.

"Math constructs" are used to *describe* reality. Do you disagree with
that,



No. I agree with that.


or do you think that there is a difference between "describe
reality" and "show reality"?



Yes. The former is/can be a description of it but not necessarily
true, while the latter can be accepted as true.

Does "the former" refer here to "describe reality", and "the latter"
to "show reality"? If yes, then I don't understand what you wanted to
say here, sorry. If no, then to what *does* it refer?



MInkowski space is imaginary diagrams, 4d
spacetime is the same as our universe where we have length, width,
depth, and time, and spacetime is a non-existent place which lives
only in our minds.

If spacetime is the same as our universe, then how can you say that
spacetime is a non-existence "place"?



It is the same only in that it has 3 dimensions plus a time dimension
the same as our universe, but in our U., space and time are not
interdependent.

Special Relativity seems to say otherwise. Are you familiar with the
formulation of Lorentz transformations as rotations in a fourdimensional
spacetime?

Saying the same in more laymen terms: one and the same event takes
different times in different reference frames. One and the same thing
has different lengths in different reference frames. So space and time
obviously are not absolute, but depend on the observer. OTOH, in
spacetime, the "length" of something is always the same for *all*
observers. So, how can you say that space and time are independent in
our universe?


Bye,
Bjoern