Time enables one to calculate the speed I must drive to
the lesbian sperm bank with the jizz I just yanked into
the tupperware container nestled lovingly between my thighs.

On mister State trooper..please don't stop me...how'n my gonna xplain
this ??

State Trooper Lyrics
Artist(Band):Bruce Springsteen

New Jersey Turnpike ridin' on a wet night 'neath the refinery's glow,
out where
the great black rivers flow
License, registration, I ain't got none but I got a clear conscience
'Bout the things that I done (sperm donations)
Mister state trooper, please don't stop me
Please don't stop me, please don't stop me

Maybe you got a kid (mine were conceived by lesbians using a turkey
baster), maybe you got a pretty wife the only thing that I got's
been both'rin' me my whole life
Mister state trooper, please don't stop me
Please don't stop me, please don't stop me

In the wee wee hours your mind gets hazy, radio relay towers lead me
to my baby
Radio's jammed up with talk show stations
It's just talk, talk, talk, talk, till you lose your patience
Mister state trooper, please don't stop me

Hey, somebody out there, listen to my last prayer

On 25 Aug, 21:01, "JM Albuquerque" wrote:
"Dr. Planckenstein" escreveu na mensagemnews:AKWdnQsGhfnV8E3bnZ2dnUVZ_ruqnZ2d@comc ast.com...







"JM Albuquerque" wrote in message
...
Time is probabilistic? That's new.
Since time plays a major role in Physics, if time is probabilistic, as
you
say, notice that momentum should be probabilistic, force should be
probabilistic, energy probabilistic, power probabilistic and everything
must
be probabilistic.
I don't agree due to the obvious reasons.

Correct. And that it how I would justify the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle.

I think that momentum, force, power and energy are all probabilistic on
the
quantum scale. Assuming that they still have meaning.

The argument is very simple. Consider a segment divided up into individual
Plancklengths. There is no reason why one configuration would make more
sense than another, so let it be indeterminate, a blur.

So, while it might make sense to mark off graduations like a ruler which
are
each 1 Plancklength long, it makes just as much sense to blur the whole
thing and let length be probabilistic. From there things get more
interesting.

But length, being equivalent to time according to SR, means that time is
also probabilistic. And this view seems to explain Paulus' femtosecond
interference experiments. Unless you wish to believe that there are "slits
in time" ? Or that the past can interfere with the future ?

I thing you have a strong point here.
You have just explained why SR and QM are incompatible.

Taking this subject a little bit further, one can say that gravity should
also
be probabilistic, since gravity is an accelerations it depends on time
squared.
How do you figure that probability squared?

I'm not an expert in QM, nor SR. My field is classic mechanics
(speciality on the gyroscope and harmonic oscillators, in all of which SR
fails because it doesn't work on accelerated frames of reference).

Looking at Paulus' femtosecond interference experiments:http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/ggp/
I say that it looks like resonance.
The laser is an harmonic oscillator and then it is phase-dependent, so
it looks like much as a resonance phenomenon.
But photons don't have mass, so they can't have inertia and so cannot
have or induce resonance (without inertia no-resonance).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

curiouser & curiouser thank-you
http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/ggp/
thats real interesting

Rex wrote:
They say time is what the clock measures and time is something
that has already happened. But i've been continued puzzled about
what time really is. How come physicists explore the possibility of
time travel. How can you go back to the past when it has already
happened. In newtonian argument, it may be as plain as this. But
in light of SR and GR. Time seems to be something more and
has an almost magical quality to it. Can you describe time in
such a way that it can make time travel makes sense (theoretically
speaking)?

Rex


Clearly, time requires a change momentum in order to have any physical
meaning.

Time is meaningless without "events" and events amount to a change in
position of at least some particle somewhere. This change in position
of course requires a transfer of momentum.

At absolute zero (another unattainable abstraction), time would not
exist (or at least, it would have no physical meaning) because nothing
would be moving.

Changes in momentum are imparted by the fundamental forces, which are in
turn generated by virtual messenger particles in quantum "fields". (Or
so my physics professors said fifteen years ago).

So it seems to me that the nature of time is rooted in the nature of
these forces and the field particles that create them.

"N" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 25 Aug, 21:01, "JM Albuquerque" wrote:
"Dr. Planckenstein" escreveu na
mensagemnews:AKWdnQsGhfnV8E3bnZ2dnUVZ_ruqnZ2d@comc ast.com...







"JM Albuquerque" wrote in message
...
Time is probabilistic? That's new.
Since time plays a major role in Physics, if time is probabilistic,
as
you
say, notice that momentum should be probabilistic, force should be
probabilistic, energy probabilistic, power probabilistic and
everything
must
be probabilistic.
I don't agree due to the obvious reasons.

Correct. And that it how I would justify the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle.

I think that momentum, force, power and energy are all probabilistic
on
the
quantum scale. Assuming that they still have meaning.

The argument is very simple. Consider a segment divided up into
individual
Plancklengths. There is no reason why one configuration would make
more
sense than another, so let it be indeterminate, a blur.

So, while it might make sense to mark off graduations like a ruler
which
are
each 1 Plancklength long, it makes just as much sense to blur the
whole
thing and let length be probabilistic. From there things get more
interesting.

But length, being equivalent to time according to SR, means that time
is
also probabilistic. And this view seems to explain Paulus' femtosecond
interference experiments. Unless you wish to believe that there are
"slits
in time" ? Or that the past can interfere with the future ?

I thing you have a strong point here.
You have just explained why SR and QM are incompatible.

Taking this subject a little bit further, one can say that gravity
should
also
be probabilistic, since gravity is an accelerations it depends on time
squared.
How do you figure that probability squared?

I'm not an expert in QM, nor SR. My field is classic mechanics
(speciality on the gyroscope and harmonic oscillators, in all of which
SR
fails because it doesn't work on accelerated frames of reference).

Looking at Paulus' femtosecond interference
experiments:http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/ggp/
I say that it looks like resonance.
The laser is an harmonic oscillator and then it is phase-dependent, so
it looks like much as a resonance phenomenon.
But photons don't have mass, so they can't have inertia and so cannot
have or induce resonance (without inertia no-resonance).- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

curiouser & curiouser thank-you
http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/ggp/
thats real interesting



I think that if gravity were modeled as a probabilistic rarification of
length then it would jive with QM. Of course you would have to consider the
atom to be a probabilistic enrichment of length with some type of structure
associated with it.

The nice thing about this view is that it explains the relationship between
mass and gravity quite nicely. Not only says what gravity and matter is made
of, but why one is associated with the other.

The statement that time (or length) is probabilistic - could robably be
reworded as:
by hypothesis: The now (or here) cannot be known with infinite precision. If
you pick a point in space, there is a nonzero probability that it will be
located at a slightly different place. Same thing with time, (the now).

There is only one way to make any of this work, Existential Indeterminacy.

I'd like to be able to falsify that the interference in Pauls' experiment
might have come from such a thing.

Rex wrote:
[...]

We humans have no way of knowing what "really" happens, or which
particular aspects of our theories correspond to reality and which do
not. All we can to is make theories about the world and its behavior,
test them experimentally, and refine them so they become better and
better MODELS of the world. This is known as science.

In our experiments, we measure "time" with clocks, and our theories
model time as what clocks measure. To date that is the best we can do.

As far as "time travel" goes, it is quite easy to "travel" into the
future -- just sit around and wait. As far as we know today, our best
theories indicate it is not possible to "travel" into the past, and
indeed no reliable and reproducible observation of that has ever been made.

Note the PUN on the word "travel".


Tom Roberts

On 26 Aug, 07:21, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics:
Rex wrote:
[...]

We humans have no way of knowing what "really" happens, or which
particular aspects of our theories correspond to reality and which do
not. All we can to is make theories about the world and its behavior,
test them experimentally, and refine them so they become better and
better MODELS of the world. This is known as science.

In our experiments, we measure "time" with clocks, and our theories
model time as what clocks measure. To date that is the best we can do.

As far as "time travel" goes, it is quite easy to "travel" into the
future -- just sit around and wait. As far as we know today, our best
theories indicate it is not possible to "travel" into the past, and
indeed no reliable and reproducible observation of that has ever been made.

Note the PUN on the word "travel".

Tom Roberts

Roberts Roberts your humour is both silly and irrelevant. There is no
idiocy that your brothers time travellers, all of them distinguished
hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult, have not taught. See this for
instance:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...c=most_popular

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 25, 2:41 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Rex wrote:
They say time is what the clock measures and time is something
that has already happened. But i've been continued puzzled about
what time really is.

Welcome to the rality of what time is. It is a good working definition
that time is what clocks measure. Here's another definition
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Time.html

How come physicists explore the possibility of



time travel. How can you go back to the past when it has already
happened. In newtonian argument, it may be as plain as this. But
in light of SR and GR. Time seems to be something more and
has an almost magical quality to it. Can you describe time in
such a way that it can make time travel makes sense (theoretically
speaking)?

Rex- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

---------------
in physics we dont deal with phylosophy.

time i s nothing but
relative motion *comparison*
between a measured object (by his motion)
and some agreed motion reference


time i s not natures invension
it is a human invension

motion is natures invension
ps
that is one of my postulates f rom a few years ago

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------

On 26 Aug, 11:35, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On 26 Aug, 07:21, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics:

Rex wrote:
[...]

We humans have no way of knowing what "really" happens, or which
particular aspects of our theories correspond to reality and which do
not. All we can to is make theories about the world and its behavior,
test them experimentally, and refine them so they become better and
better MODELS of the world. This is known as science.

In our experiments, we measure "time" with clocks, and our theories
model time as what clocks measure. To date that is the best we can do.

As far as "time travel" goes, it is quite easy to "travel" into the
future -- just sit around and wait. As far as we know today, our best
theories indicate it is not possible to "travel" into the past, and
indeed no reliable and reproducible observation of that has ever been made.

Note the PUN on the word "travel".

Tom Roberts

Roberts Roberts your humour is both silly and irrelevant. There is no
idiocy that your brothers time travellers, all of them distinguished
hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult, have not taught. See this for
instance:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...c=most_popular

Roberts Roberts your brother time traveller Paul Davies is a great
scientist because he can extract money from various time machines
built on Einstein's theories of relativity:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...c=most_popular
"Our best understanding of time comes from Einstein's theories of
relativity....In effect, Sally has leaped nine years into Earth's
future.....Speed is one way to jump ahead in time. Gravity is another.
In his general theory of relativity, Einstein predicted that gravity
slows time."

But your brother time traveller Paul Davies is more than just a great
scientist Roberts Roberts. Paul Davies is a genius because Paul Davies
is ready to start extracting money even from the fact that the speed
of light is variable, a fact that topples Einstein's relativities.
This will happen only if the variable speed of light is introduced by
Paul Davies's friend, Joao Magueijo:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...ls.php?id=5538
"Was Einstein wrong? The idea of a variable speed of light, championed
by an angry young scientist, could one day topple Einstein's theory of
relativity." Paul Davies

Joao Magueijo says the speed of light varies with time but does not
say it varies with the gravitational potential or the relative speed
of the light source and the observer. In Einstein zombie world this
means money could be extracted from toppling Einstein's relativity, on
one hand, but also from not toppling it and continuing to use it for
building various time machines, on the other. For that reason Paul
Davies and Joao Magueijo are friends. Big friends. Like Don Corleone
and Don Tataglia. Paul Davies and Joao Magueijo know nothing about
people claiming the equation c'=c+v is correct, and do not want to
know anything about them. Those people die in oblivion but sometimes
manage to write a book while dying:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

Pentcho Valev

On 25 Ago, 01:19, Rex wrote:

They say time is what the clock measures and time is something
that has already happened.

In my opinion:
time measures... something happened (that is happening) and we
use the time

But everything in the world "is only perceived".
Are you the "World"?
If you sense environment it's just a sensation, your world is an image
of it: the light draws the whole world at your eyes.
So, the world is only in the light. But does the light disappear once
received/captured/revealed?

"marcofuics" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 25 Ago, 01:19, Rex wrote:

They say time is what the clock measures and time is something
that has already happened.

In my opinion:
time measures... something happened (that is happening) and we
use the time

But everything in the world "is only perceived".
Are you the "World"?
If you sense environment it's just a sensation, your world is an image
of it: the light draws the whole world at your eyes.
So, the world is only in the light. But does the light disappear once
received/captured/revealed?

So .. where do you get your drugs?