How is time defined in newtonian physics?

[farolero]

ok youre not answering my questions and its already difficult enough

 

if initially the guys are one meter big with a one meter big ruler and separated one km the ruler will fit 1000 times

 

how many times will the ruler fit when the ruler and the guys are 500 m big

 

i hope youre answer is 2 or well have a problem

 

now let me ask you another question

 

the two guys want to obtain their distance and they have a ruler in their pocket, how will they obtain the distance? this is like of what colour is johnys white horse

 

i hope youre answer is the ruler, correct me if not

 

ok now please think about this:

 

will the guys BE ABLE TO KNOW the ruler has changed size if theyre alone in the universe and everything grew symultaneously?

 

edit:

 

ok ill anticipate your answers, i hope youre an honest person and are not here just to argue:

 

nope the guys wont be able to know anyway the ruler has changed size cause their RELATIVE size to everything that exists in this just two persons universe remains constant, theres no universal ruler they can compare theirs with

 

so if the guys think the ruler has a constant size and intially the ruler fitted 1000 times and finally it fitted 2 times what will they conclude?

 

that the distance betwee them has shortened?

 

and have they moved?

 

no in reality they havent moved?

 

so is it the dimention of size relevant to distance?

 

yes it is

Edited December 18, 2016 by farolero

[studiot]

 

OK youre not answering my questions

 

But I did address your question in my post#19

[farolero]

no i meant strange is not adressing my questions and still he argues

 

you have to stop assuming the sun APPEARS TO REVOLVE hence it revolves this is not valid logic

 

you have to stop thinking it appears to move hence it moves

 

what if its just change of size and this change of size its been NEGLECTED and ignored all the time for being SYMULTANEOUS it APPEARS to not be there

 

what is frustrating for me is that if its taking so long to get to the most basics concepts how its gonna be with the more difficult ones

 

edit:

 

also i think ill have to start making shorter posts this seems to be a problem, people want to argue with me without even bothering listening to what i say

i think strange problem is that he assumes theres an universal ruler in the universe of the two guys floating in space

 

theres no universal ruler theres just the ruler thay have in their pocket which is growing

 

the only way they can measure distance is with the growing ruler they have

 

do you understand this?

 

do you understand also they wont notice their ruler is growing because size is relative?

Edited December 18, 2016 by farolero

[michel123456]

here theres a 5 min video that explains it maybe more didactically:

 

 

lets do a simulattion with our minds:

 

two objects are separated 1 m and are 1 cm big AND THEYRE STILL

 

after each grow to a size of 50 cm after x time they will meet

 

but they havent moved theyve just had an illusory perception of motion due to not noticing the change in size for relatively to each other they havent changed size

 

so when you apply a force on an object what youre really doing it its shrinking it and acelerating its time rate

 

thats why as a car moves away it gets smaller and slower

Slower, yes.

But if you put a clock, or a metronome in the car, you will see that the tick on the far away car keeps ticking at the same rate. The shrinking effect of perspective does not act on time.

[Strange]

what if its just change of size and this change of size its been NEGLECTED and ignored all the time for being SYMULTANEOUS it APPEARS to not be there

So how would you be able tell the difference between everything changing size by the same amount and nothing changing size? What experiment can you do to test your idea?

do you understand also they wont notice their ruler is growing because size is relative?

Do you understand that it therefore makes no difference? And that therefore your "size" is irrelevant

[farolero]

So how would you be able tell the difference between everything changing size by the same amount and nothing changing size? What experiment can you do to test your idea?

 

Do you understand that it therefore makes no difference? And that therefore your "size" is irrelevant

i would be able to tell the difference by fictious forces that i would take as magical

 

picture this:

 

the earth and the falling apple ARE STILL in space they just inflate

 

again check this:

 

 

and in fact this is what really happen earth and apple get closer, butch is trying to make you see this in his thread einstein was right

 

youre not answering my question so please answer me this question:

 

how will the growing guys measure their distance if they happen to have a ruler with them?

[studiot]

@falolero

 

I understand what you are trying to say, without the proper maths.

 

However your examples are, like your title, set in a Euclidian universe.

 

Newtonian Physics is Euclidian.

 

'Size' variation with position is non Euclidian.

[Strange]

i would be able to tell the difference by fictious forces that i would take as magical

Please explain, in suitable mathematical detail, how these forces would differ with and without changing size.

 

youre not answering my question so please answer me this question:

 

how will the growing guys measure their distance if they happen to have a ruler with them?

I have answered. Repeatedly. The fact that it is impossible to tell the difference between decreasing distance and increasing size (there: answered it again) is why your concept of changing size is irrelevant/meaningless.

[farolero]

@falolero

 

I understand what you are trying to say, without the proper maths.

 

However your examples are, like your title, set in a Euclidian universe.

 

Newtonian Physics is Euclidian.

 

'Size' variation with position is non Euclidian.

maybe you could be so kind to explain strange, im not sure he is just a contrarian who comes to this section to argue with handicapped people or he isnt even able to understand relativity of size

 

the space time i propose is not euclidean as you rightly and kindly point is a motionless space

 

its a radically new concept which breaks with everything weve been considering in the last 4000 years with some exceptions as parmenides

 

and as strange involuntarily admitted i could take it and no make any difference so he just validated it as a POSIBLE brand new perspective of space and time to explain things as motion

 

my conception of spacetime is 5 dimensional euclidean space is just 4 dimensional

 

edit:

 

studiot if you understand that in a motionless space there can be APPARENT MOTION maybe i can move to next step of my reasoning and explain how you can go past an object just by changing size and this part is what bogles the mind about this new not euclidean spacetime perspective

I have answered. Repeatedly. The fact that it is impossible to tell the difference between decreasing distance and increasing size (there: answered it again) is why your concept of changing size is irrelevant/meaningless.

no youre ignoring a simple single clear and simple question becuase you dont like where it leads to so you ignore the question and bring different arguments

 

ill formulate my question again and if you want to keep arguing with me please answer this single question:

 

if two guys are floating in space and they grow in size(thing they dont notice because of relativity of size)and they have a ruler with them how will they measure their distance?

it is impossible to tell the difference between decreasing distance and increasing size

so here youre validating my model as valid but you stille feel like arguing spreading the hate instead of spreading the love,if my model is valid as you admit why now youre not constructive and try to see where this model take us:

 

like your model is valid and posible to take is not valid, amazing logic

 

thank god im not a teacher

now an itelligent argument would be:

 

yeah motion can be explained as just change of size

 

but changing size you can never REACH WITH YOUR CENTER a mark 2 m apart nevertheless traspass it

 

do you understand this question and problem?

Edited December 18, 2016 by farolero

[Strange]

Please explain how you would distinguish between your model and the standard one.

 

(And stop whinging about me asking questions. I assume the reason you posted your idea was to get some criticism of it.)

but changing size you can never REACH WITH YOUR CENTER a mark 2 m apart

 

do you understand this question and problem?

No.

[farolero]

Please explain how you would distinguish between your model and the standard one.

 

(And stop whinging about me asking questions. I assume the reason you posted your idea was to get some criticism of it.)

 

No.

the standard model is a four dimentional euclidean model my model is a five dimentional non euclidean model where motion doesnt exist is just an illusion

 

i love you to ask questions but please answer mine

 

ill ask again:

 

if two guys are floating in space and they grow in size(thing they dont notice because of relativity of size)and they have a ruler with them how will they measure their distance?

 

when you have answered this question ill go on traspassing a two m distant mark

ok so i think we can agree this conception of space is not euclidean

 

do you all agree?

 

its a five dimention spacetime while euclidean spacetime is four dimentional

 

but actually is a simplified space time

 

in euclidean space there are 7 posible variables

 

x translation y translation z translation x rotation y rotation z rotation and time

 

while in the spacetime i propose there are just 5 posible variables:

 

x rotation y rotation z rotation size and time

 

edit :

 

this idea could be as well to compress info

 

two determine whats going on with a particle in space euclidean would need 7 values which i could compress to five values

 

i could take a book and interpret the letters as coordenate numbers of things in an euclidean spacetime

 

i would pass those coordenates to my spacetime and hence i would have compressed the book (7/5)*100%

ok since nobody is bringing up good arguments ill bring them myself

 

how can i say i can define all the position of objects in an space time with five coordenates while euclidean spacetime needs 7 coordenates thats a wild affirmation

 

if you call size a single dimention isnt posible and object grows in the x axe of space and shrinks in the y axe?isnt that a posible motion?

 

yes thats right but in this new spacetime due to conservation of momentum timerate and size product its constant with which both values are autoeliminative and you just account for them in 3 axes of space at the same time

 

for example if you double size in the x axe timerate will half in the x axe and if at the same time you half size in the y axe timerate will double in the y axe

 

so they are autoeliminative and you can account just for size along all axes and time along all axes instead of accounting them for each axe

 

edit:

 

this is where my concept bogles the mind:

 

if you grow 1 m in one second in the x axe and you shrink 1 m in minus one second in the y axe youre spacetime remains continuum and constant and you just have the peception you advance one m in the sense determined by your rotation coordenates

 

edit:

 

i just can not believe what ive just found:

 

the key for the akashic library

 

when i define a the midnight summer book as the coordinates of an euclidean space and redefine those coordintaes t a five dimentional space i will have saved 40% of pages

 

and when i reinterpret those charachters as coordenates of an euclidean space and redfien that sapce to mine i will have saved another 40% pages

 

till eventually i get a single word which defines the whole book

 

i wonder what would happen if i did the opposite with for example the word love

 

im on it thanks guys for making me think farther theres nothing like explaining things to understand them better, so thanks a lot strange

Edited December 18, 2016 by farolero

[Strange]

ill ask again:

 

if two guys are floating in space and they grow in size(thing they dont notice because of relativity of size)and they have a ruler with them how will they measure their distance?

 

 

I will answer again, the same way I always will: if their rulers expand with them then they will measure the distance decreasing between them.

 

You can keep asking, but I you will keep getting the same answer. If it is not the one you want: tough.

 

 

the key for the akashic library

 

What deranged nonsense is this?

but changing size you can never REACH WITH YOUR CENTER a mark 2 m apart nevertheless traspass it

 

 

I gather English is not your first language, but even making allowances for that I cannot work out what that sentence means.

[farolero]

 

excuse me but i have better things to do than discuss with a guy who belongs more to an orwelian world where he has fun discussing 2+2=5 with the handicapped prisoners than to a decent world where people try to understand how things work and quest fo the truth

 

you dont even qualify for prescholar if you dont even understand relativity of size even after being throughly explained so go on filling your mouth with eisntein relativity and keep singing maantras you dont even have the slightest clue about

 

youre the example of this failure of educative system where memorization rules over creativity and a parrot could get any degree

 

since youre not answering my question and lack prescholar education ill ignore you from now on

 

if somebody who understands my point has any question ill be glad to answer them

[Strange]

Please explain how you would distinguish between your model and the standard one.

 

​What experimental tests could measure this changing size?

[studiot]

Perhaps everyone could cool off and stay on topic?

 

Talking of topic I don't understand the title of this thread if you are not discussing Newtonian/Euclidian physics.

 

By the way the fourth 'dimension' in 4d relativity space is not time but ict.

Using time alone has the wrong units.

And the square root of minus one has to be included to get the metric signs right.

[michel123456]

So how would you be able tell the difference between everything changing size by the same amount and nothing changing size? What experiment can you do to test your idea?

 

Do you understand that it therefore makes no difference? And that therefore your "size" is irrelevant

The "changing size" factor is time dependent. It means that if you look in the past, you should observe everything being smaller.

And curiously, that is exactly what the laws of optics say. Objects far way are objects in the past, and objects far away look small.

The step consisting into replacing the word "look" with the word "are" is huge, though.

[Strange]

The "changing size" factor is time dependent. It means that if you look in the past, you should observe everything being smaller.

 

 

Nice idea. But I don't think it will work. If you observe a man in the past who is 2 metres tall as measured by his 1 metre ruler, then he will still appear to be 2 metres tall: you can't measure him with your own ruler (because he is not there, he is in the past) you can only measure him with his own ruler. So you won't see a change.

 

Which is why we use a known reference for observing the scaling factor of distant galaxies. That allows us to measure the change in scale.

 

 

 

And curiously, that is exactly what the laws of optics say. Objects far way are objects in the past, and objects far away look small.

 

The trouble is, you can't have two different explanations for the same effect. If it is purely geometrical effect as described by optics, then there is no room for changing size. If it were due to things being smaller in the past, then there must be something seriously wrong with geometry.

[StringJunky]

I have answered. Repeatedly. The fact that it is impossible to tell the difference between decreasing distance and increasing size (there: answered it again) is why your concept of changing size is irrelevant/meaningless.

It's like asking in the scenario with you and a rock in space moving towards each other in the absence of any other external reference: is the rock moving towards you or are you moving towards the rock; relativity of motion.

[farolero]

Talking of topic I don't understand the title of this thread if you are not discussing Newtonian/Euclidian physics.

 

By the way the fourth 'dimension' in 4d relativity space is not time but ict.

Using time alone has the wrong units.

And the square root of minus one has to be included to get the metric signs right.

if you double the size of a clock the speed of the pendulum doubles as well so time and size are relatives

 

to move along the x axe first you inflate as time slows dow but to pass the zero mark you inflate infinitely and then when time becomes zero time reveses and inflation changes to shrinking

 

so to move along the x axe you can inflate in positive time or shrink in negative time both appear to be the same as constant motion

 

so in this perspective time is a relative of size and it can go negative

 

edit.

 

the main advantage of this perspective is that i can take an euclidean space and define it with 7 values for each objet

 

but in a 5 dimentional spacetime i could define all those objects with 5 valuues

 

this would allow to compress info or do the opposite which points to be a key to the akashic lybrary where all knowledge of the universe is contained

my consideration is that when i move along the x axe i inflate my front in positve time and shrink my back in negative time

 

right now im working on a compressor acounting for this

Slower, yes.

But if you put a clock, or a metronome in the car, you will see that the tick on the far away car keeps ticking at the same rate. The shrinking effect of perspective does not act on time.

its not the same the time rate which is constant that the time speed that varies with size

 

our perception of time goes in function of time speed, time rate is an arbitrary measure cause size changes

 

as i said a bigger pendulum to keep a constant period with a bigger distance to run goes faster which gives a slower pereption of time by the limit of light speed, just as einstein lightclock at relativistic speeds

Edited December 20, 2016 by farolero

[studiot]

if you double the size of a clock the speed of the pendulum doubles as well so time and size are relatives

 

to move along the x axe first you inflate as time slows dow but to pass the zero mark you inflate infinitely and then when time becomes zero time reveses and inflation changes to shrinking

 

so to move along the x axe you can inflate in positive time or shrink in negative time both appear to be the same as constant motion

 

so in this perspective time is a relative of size and it can go negative

 

edit.

 

the main advantage of this perspective is that i can take an euclidean space and define it with 7 values for each objet

 

but in a 5 dimentional spacetime i could define all those objects with 5 valuues

 

this would allow to compress info or do the opposite which points to be a key to the akashic lybrary where all knowledge of the universe is contained

my consideration is that when i move along the x axe i inflate my front in positve time and shrink my back in negative time

 

right now im working on a compressor acounting for this

its not the same the time rate which is constant that the time speed that varies with size

 

our perception of time goes in function of time speed, time rate is an arbitrary measure cause size changes

 

as i said a bigger pendulum to keep a constant period with a bigger distance to run goes faster which gives a slower pereption of time by the limit of light speed, just as einstein lightclock at relativistic speeds

 

Thank you for your reply to my post #40.

 

Unfortunately you still have not answered my question

 

What does all this have to do with Newtonian Physics?

 

If you are not talking about Newtonian Physics, why did you state explicitly that this is what this thread is about in the title?

 

Can I recommend you study the English Dictionary, which contains Science, rather than the Secret Doctrine, which does not.

Blavatsky at least got her English correct when trying to communicate with the Astral Plane.

 

This is not being rude it is simply an expression that if you misuse common scientific English words you will not be understood.

Edited December 20, 2016 by studiot

[Strange]

as i said a bigger pendulum to keep a constant period with a bigger distance to run goes faster which gives a slower pereption of time by the limit of light speed, just as einstein lightclock at relativistic speeds

 

 

Can you show, mathematically, that changing the size produces the same results as special relativity?

 

Can you explain how this relates to General Relativity?

 

But, as you claim that changing size affects both distance and time then it cannot be considered a dimension. An important aspect of the definition of dimensions is that they are independent values.

[farolero]

so what im working on now is define a four side polygon that in an euclidean space is defined with 8 coordenates just define it in a five dimensional non euclidean space with just the four coordiantes of size

 

so if i have:

 

AB

CD

 

i can shrinking all abcd equally with which it moves along both axes equally or just shrink ab and leave alone cd with which just one side of the polygone moves

ok so i have a square defined as a(11)b(21)c(12)d(22) i euclidean space

 

in a five dimentional space i would define it as (1111)

 

if the euclidean space changes to (22)(42)(24)(44) the five dimetional space square changes to (2222)

 

if the euclidean space square changes to (22)(42)(12)(22) the five dimentional square changes to (2211)

 

seems an equation would solve the translation between dimentions

 

definitely writting things down to explain ideas help

Edited December 21, 2016 by farolero

[studiot]

You that you have not yet answered the question I asked several times in this thread, most recently in post#45.

 

Can I remind you that it is an express rule in the Speculations section that you do this>

 

So before rushing onwards, taking nobody with you, please pause and give me a satisfactory answer.

 

 

What does this thread have to do with its title about Newtonian Physics?

[farolero]

it was the first thing that ocurred to me since this thread its about space time

actually i should have asked what s=vt mean

[studiot]

Since you clearly wish to simply mess about without making a serious proposition I bid you and your thread adieu.