"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Aug 28, 2:40 am, Traveler wrote:
: On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 08:07:31 +0100, "JM Albuquerque"
: wrote:
: [snip crap]
:
: Pack it, Alburquerque. How about that? ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
: ahahaha...
:
: Louis Savain
:
: So predictable:
: 1. Savain: "What's really going on here is [crap]"
: 2. Commenter: "Why, Savain, that's crap."
: 3. Savain: "**** you. ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.... ahahaha..."
: 4. Repeat.


Oh, you want a repeat:

Draper:
I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.

I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or
drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
reveals the true interest in the proposal.

While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.

I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.

[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear]
-- PD (alias Phuckwit Duck)
--
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.

Ref: ups.com


"SR is GR with G=0." -- Uncle Stooopid.

The Uncle Stooopid doctrine:
http://sound.westhost.com/counterfeit.jpg

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.


"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.

Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).

According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying *******s will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.

On Sep 8, 11:29 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

How can there be motion without time? I once read a nice little
'definition' (to paraphrase): Time is that which allows things to change.

In building a unidirectional numerical system that matches time one
can come to understand that time is zero dimensional:

Nonsense

Your criticism lacks content. The generalization of sign is an
overlooked piece of mathematics. The properties of the two-signed
numbers (the reals) have been generalized in a straightforward manner.
The results expose that sign and dimensionality are directly related.

Many will focus on the concept of 'now' when discussing time and will
dismiss time as nonexistent. This is nearly what the one-signed
numbers expose however they also grant the unidirectional nature of
time arithmetically. An insistence to build all numerical constructs
from the real numbers will not convey the polysign system clearly. To
build polysign numbers from two-signed numbers is not legitimate.
Instead magnitude must be used as a basis. There is perhaps a more
exotic basis that will better serve physics such as a transform to (1/
(x+1)) but regardless of physics a clean mathematical model of
classical and observed time is the one-signed numbers. Part of the
trouble is that dimension has been defined in terms of the real number
basis through the Cartesian product. Under polysign there is a
different route to dimension. The two seem to coexist nicely but down
at the bottom the one-signed numbers (P1) cannot be rendered into a
Cartesian system. Many would enforce an exception for P1 were they to
swallow the polysign construction. That is how I started out but it is
clear that no exceptions should exist in a pure mathematical
construction. Instead we see that under the polysign context a zero
dimensional arithmetic entity is defined with slightly more detail
than the Cartesian point.

All dimensions in the polysign system allow for large accumulations
while allowing a local geometry; the components merely need to be
balanced. So a principle of accumulation may apply to time and to
space as well.

-Tim

"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 8, 11:29 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...

How can there be motion without time? I once read a nice little
'definition' (to paraphrase): Time is that which allows things to
change.

In building a unidirectional numerical system that matches time one
can come to understand that time is zero dimensional:

Nonsense

Your criticism lacks content.

So does your website

On Sep 9, 10:12 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" wrote in oglegroups.com...

On Sep 8, 11:29 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...

How can there be motion without time? I once read a nice little
'definition' (to paraphrase): Time is that which allows things to
change.

In building a unidirectional numerical system that matches time one
can come to understand that time is zero dimensional:

Nonsense

Your criticism lacks content.

So does your website

It may be that you do not understand what you are reading.
It may also be true that my website is lacking content yet it is the
best that I can do.
The polysign topic is presented in a way that I believe is legible to
a nonmathematical person who is familiar with the real numbers at a
grade school level. Sum and product in general sign are defined. These
are consistent with the traditional math as two-signed numbers(P2). So
the transition is not so challenging. To challenge the view of P2 as
unquestionably fundamental. They are not fundamental under the
polysign constuction. It is evident that the complex numbers are as
fundamental as the real numbers and have no additional rules.
Traditional math has not found this because sign has never been
generalized. The gains of the polysign system are considerable. Were
it not for these consequential details I do think that a generalized
sign might be worth neglecting. Instead I see staggering consequences.
It is not I who is staggered- it is the traditional math that has been
staggering around with a staircased dimensional design. These maths
coexist and I do not discount the Cartesian thinking completely.
Still, under the polysign construction dimension can be taken from
signature. This is radically different and the underlying geometry is
subtly different. See for instance
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned...e/Lattice.html

I am sincerely curious what your substantial criticism is since that
will help me to revise. However the one-line rejection that you
communicate is not helpful and if anything does not reflect well on
your own internet presence. Will Mr. Hyde step forward?

-Tim

"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 9, 10:12 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" wrote in
oglegroups.com...

On Sep 8, 11:29 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...

How can there be motion without time? I once read a nice little
'definition' (to paraphrase): Time is that which allows things to
change.

In building a unidirectional numerical system that matches time one
can come to understand that time is zero dimensional:

Nonsense

Your criticism lacks content.

So does your website

It may be that you do not understand what you are reading.

I understand. Its a load of rubbish.

You simply confuse signs with dimensions and go downhill from there.

Perhaps you've never heard of such things as natural numbers or counting
numbers .. these do not have signs. There is nothing new and wonderful
abount numbers not having a sign. Either they are signed (have a plus or
minus) or not signed (plus only). Your arbitrary decision to introduce more
signs is simply making adding extra dimensions. There is nothing new about
that either.

On Sep 10, 9:18 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" wrote in oglegroups.com...
It may be that you do not understand what you are reading.

I understand. Its a load of rubbish.

You simply confuse signs with dimensions and go downhill from there.

Perhaps you've never heard of such things as natural numbers or counting
numbers .. these do not have signs. There is nothing new and wonderful
abount numbers not having a sign. Either they are signed (have a plus or
minus) or not signed (plus only). Your arbitrary decision to introduce more
signs is simply making adding extra dimensions. There is nothing new about
that either.

Yes, there are new consequences. The simplest continuum concept
without sign is magnitude in its traditional sense. I agree that there
is nothing new in my usage of the word magnitude. But signs are not
'confused' with dimensions. Instead a simple relationship is
established. For instance in three-signed numbers we observe that
- 1 + 1 * 1 = 0
or in general
- x + x * x = 0
where x is a magnitude. The superposition of such numbers directly
implies that they take a 2D form. For instance were I to consider a
three-signed(P3) value
z = - 2.3 + 1.2 * 3.4 - 5.2 * 1.1
we could take a first step of simplifying:
z = - 7.5 + 1.2 * 4.5
by applying a very simple law:
s1 x1 + s1 x2 = s1( x1 + x2)
where s is sign, x is magnitude, and '+' means superposition. This is
familiar from the real numbers where
- 2.3 - 1.1 = - 3.4
so in this line above s1 is '-' (or sign one) and x1 is 2.3 and x2 is
1.1 .
Applying this law further we see that
z = - 1.2 + 1.2 * 1.2 - 6.3 * 3.3 .
The next stage of simplification uses the rule
- x + x * x = 0
which is symmetrical to the usual rule in the reals (P2)
- x + x = 0 .
Since the first three components
- 1.2 + 1.2 * 1.2
of this latest expression of z cancel to zero we then see that
z = - 6.3 * 3.3 .
This value does not reduce further. In the reals (P2) the same
procedures apply. Rather than reducing to two terms as in P3 a P2 (the
reals) expression will always reduce to at most one term. This is the
dimensional relation and in hindsight you will see that it follows
graphically with perfect correspondence to the plane:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned...edGeometry.png
Thus P3 is a vector space in the traditional sense though its
components appear adulterated to a Cartesian thinker such as yourself.
However this is the natural form of generalized sign and in general it
is observed that
D = n - 1
where D is traditional dimension and n is the signature. In the
example above n is 3.
Whereas Cartesian thought requires one to introduce a Cartesian
product no such construction is required under generalized sign. Thus
an arithmetic route to dimension is established.
Upon defining products in polysign I can show you that the complex
numbers are P3 but I should focus directly on your criticism so let's
forgo that.

At last you have detailed criticism. Now perhaps we can find out where
I have gone wrong in communicating to you. Is there a better way to
state this relation? The layout as I have given above is nearly the
same as on my website. This instance is slightly more complicated
though perhaps the complication makes more apparent. I keep trying
subtle variations in the hope of getting through but rarely does it
happen. If only I could present this material better then it could be
better appreciated. I am grateful of your persistence here. A disproof
by you would be valuable though I believe that you will fail such an
attempt; the construction of polysign numbers is clean.

-Tim

"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 10, 9:18 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com" wrote in
oglegroups.com...
It may be that you do not understand what you are reading.

I understand. Its a load of rubbish.

You simply confuse signs with dimensions and go downhill from there.

Perhaps you've never heard of such things as natural numbers or counting
numbers .. these do not have signs. There is nothing new and wonderful
abount numbers not having a sign. Either they are signed (have a plus or
minus) or not signed (plus only). Your arbitrary decision to introduce
more
signs is simply making adding extra dimensions. There is nothing new
about
that either.

Yes, there are new consequences. The simplest continuum concept
without sign is magnitude in its traditional sense. I agree that there
is nothing new in my usage of the word magnitude. But signs are not
'confused' with dimensions. Instead a simple relationship is
established. For instance in three-signed numbers we observe that
- 1 + 1 * 1 = 0

That is two dimensions .. one wirth positive and negative, and a new
dimension with only positive (magnitude only)

That's all you are doing .. it is nothing new .. it doesn't explain anything
new .. it doesn't predict anything new.

On Sep 10, 7:04 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
is nothing new in my usage of the word magnitude. But signs are not
'confused' with dimensions. Instead a simple relationship is
established. For instance in three-signed numbers we observe that
- 1 + 1 * 1 = 0

That is two dimensions .. one wirth positive and negative, and a new
dimension with only positive (magnitude only)

That's all you are doing .. it is nothing new .. it doesn't explain anything
new .. it doesn't predict anything new.

Wouldn't your interpretation only cover half of the plane?
Why then do the three-signed numbers cover the whole plane?
Then what about four-signed math? is this merely 2D with full
coverage? The answer is no, it is 3D with full coverage. A simplex
coordinate system is detailed on my website. These four-signed numbers
behave algebraically. They are not quaternions. They are a new breed.
You still have not come to see the product have you? This is an
algebraic system that exists in every dimension, including a zero-
dimensional space which is the one-signed numbers(P1). P1 has perfect
correspondence to time. Much better than the typical real valued usage
which is cause of many puzzling threads such as this one. Can you name
a seven dimensional math that obeys the associative and commutative
laws under arithmetic superposition and product? I can. It is P8. Best
of all the magnitude behavior of the higher sign spaces under product
have an interesting change in behavior beginning at P4. So a natural
form of spacetime is established under the polysign construction.

I admit that I do not yet have a full physical theory built around the
polysign math. Yet such a theory will have power far beyond an
arbitrary choice of three dimensional space and one dimension of time.
Does the theoretician explain observation with mathematics? In that
spacetime is observed it is then the theoretical burden of physicists
to explain such observation mathematically. Merely mimicing spacetime
is not enough. I predict that spacetime is structured rather than
isotropic. I predict that an electron's spin will flow naturally out
of anisotropic spacetime under the polysign progression. I predict
that Maxwell's equations are not a unification. They are instead a
tight relation and that is why to this day we still use charge and
magnetism as distinct properties. I predict that electromagnetic
phenomena are a direct statement about spacetime itself and that
insistence on a Cartesian model of spacetime is invalid. I predict
that the tensor math of relativity is misused and that the
(a)symmetric tensors which expose electromagnetic behavior are
symptomatic of these other claims.

Proof of such concepts I do not yet have, but strong signals are
present. Certainly these claims are too much to discuss here but the
dimensional behaviors outlined above will suffice to discuss won't
they? We seem to have a real discrepancy. You say that the three-
signed numbers only cover half of the plane yet the graphics which
I've already presented to you cover the whole plane. The four signed
numbers cover 3D space. The five signed numbers cover 4D space.
Perhaps you have not seen
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned...Transform.html
Your claim is false for simpler reasons.
If your claim were true then the P3 coordinate
- 1 + 1 * 1
would be away from the origin and the coordinate
- 1 + 1
would be at the origin.
Instead the polysign construction inherently tells us that in P3
- 1 + 1 * 1
is at the origin. This does not jibe with your interpretation. So I
must plead with you that you have not obeyed the definitions of the
polysign construction. We want generalized sign and in hindsight you
can see that the behavior of the reals (P2) which will get it is
- x + x = 0 .
Symmetrically for P3
- x + x * x = 0 .
There is perfect balance between the three signs under superposition.
To treat one of them uniquely under superposition does not follow. In
the product we do observe a break in symmetry (even for the reals) and
this is where things get interesting.
For instance:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/MagnitudeSweep

-Tim

On 25 Aug, 00:19, 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

Hi Rex, How's this for an analysis of 'Time'
All living creatures need some sort of 'Body-Clock'
Man's time, is different from other creatures, because we have have
devised our own, based on the Sun, Moon & other things. Without the
existence of 'Brains' Time would not exist! and it is simply the
duration from one instant to another, aand is measured differently by
different Species. Astronomers are looking at events that
took place 'Light years' ago, and if man could travel away from such
events at say double the speed of light, they would see events that
took place even further back!
Hicky.

On 11 Sep, 16:48, wrote:
On 25 Aug, 00:19, 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

Hi Rex, How's this for an analysis of 'Time'
All living creatures need some sort of 'Body-Clock'
Man's time, is different from other creatures, because we have have
devised our own, based on the Sun, Moon & other things. Without the
existence of 'Brains' Time would not exist! and it is simply the
duration from one instant to another, aand is measured differently by
different Species. Astronomers are looking at events that
took place 'Light years' ago, and if man could travel away from such
events at say double the speed of light, they would see events that
took place even further back!
Hicky. P.S. Thare is no such thing really as 'NOW'!! there is a 'PAST' & a 'FUTURE' but 'NOW' does not really exist!!