time= decay?

ruthless

ruthless

Rift Surfer
time= decay
correct? or incorrect? is decay even a scientific term?! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

some say that time goes in a loop, but if it does, itd have to be at least a 130 yr. loop. because we dont live forever. although that could be an explanation as to why people supposedly lived so long in the old testament lol.

anyways, just a thought.

and that just made me wonder, is time attached to an object and every object has its own time?
 
Hi ruthless,

time= decay
correct? or incorrect? is decay even a scientific term?!
Click to expand...

Yes, decay is a scientific term, especially when you put the words "radioactive" or "atomic" in front of it. And you are correct in that one way of measuring time is to measure the atomic decay. In fact, this is precisely how Carbon-12 dating is accomplished. But I will always point out (as I always do!) that any and all measures of time eventually lead back to one fact: Matter in Motion.

and that just made me wonder, is time attached to an object and every object has its own time?
Click to expand...

This is, essentially, one of the precepts of relativity. Since all bodies are in motion, and since we know clocks tick at different (if even slightly) rates with two bodies in relative motion to one another, this then says that not only does each unique body occupy a unique set of spatial coordinates (i.e. two things cannot occupy the same space), but each body also has its own relative time coordinate reference frame. This leads to defining a "spacetime manifold" rather than speaking of space and time as separate (which we now know is only a fallacy...an approximation).

And let's not forget our dimensional analysis which tells us:

Space per unit Time = Space/Time = Velocity (or its higher derivatives) = Motion.

Now we just need to fold Matter into the picture and we will be getting somewhere!

RMT
 
ruthless,

time= decay
Click to expand...

Another kudo for you. I really do wish that you'd had the opportunity in your younger years to extend your formal education. Even though you may not always get the preferred terms correct you have the sort of inquiring mind that makes a good scientist. Your intiution is usually right on spot.

time= decay

As time moves forward the total disorder of the system increases. Entropy is just another way of stating disorder...or decay of order.

It really doesn't make any difference what you do to try to increase order in the universe. You can assemble, for instance, a deck of cards by suit and rank (Ace thru King, Spades thru Clubs) and say, "Wow! I've increased the orderliness of my universe somewhat! I put this deck of cards in a specific order."

But it took an output of energy to manipulate the cards. That energy, heat, is disordered. You put a local system in some sort of arbitrary order but overall you decreased the order of your universe by radiating heat energy, i.e. you decayed the orderliness of your universe over time. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Good observation my friend. Ray and I appreciate your observations.
 
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really do wish that you'd had the opportunity in your younger years to extend your formal education.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This sounds rather condescending.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it might... but within the context of backchannel PM's that both Darby and I have had with ruthless, we are aware of his history, and we both continue to encourage him to get that education...because it is NOT TOO LATE!

In fact, ruthless has been kind of taking my current term's ARO 101 course via "correspondence". BTW, ruthless, have you completed the midterm yet? This week is review for the final and next week is the final exam! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMT
 
"This sounds rather condescending."

nah, not really. these guys know me pretty well, i actually took it as a compliment. :O
the thing is, i myself wish that i had been into school more when i was younger. my problem is that im trying to do things that are really too advanced for me when i really dont even know the basics, i just comprehend things pretty easy. once i have a good scientific foundation this stuff will be childs play to me.

and speaking about childs play, that midterm gives me more nightmares than when i was a kid! i apologize for not getting it done yet, i am extremely sorry about that. ive been trying to come up with the cash for the textbook. my wifes grandmother died a few weeks ago and moneys been real tight.(tight meaning none. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif )

i think that test is a little out of my league without that book, or something to go by. and i apologize for not saying anything, but that test scares me about as much as a rattlesnake...

i will get it done, i just need the book.
 
i just looked at my name to the left and it says ive made 696 posts, and that ive been a member here for almost a year. wow... i am in awe when i look back and think about all the things i have learned this past year. i remember posting my first post thinking i could debunk titor. a year later, im still trying to figure it out lol.

i am going to attempt to get into msu in january. i really hope i'll get in, but with my luck ill probably be going to a community college lol.
 
"But it took an output of energy to manipulate the cards. That energy, heat, is disordered. You put a local system in some sort of arbitrary order but overall you decreased the order of your universe by radiating heat energy, i.e. you decayed the orderliness of your universe over time."

this helped me to understand the concept of overunity a little better, and why it cannot be achieved.
 
"Space per unit Time = Space/Time = Velocity (or its higher derivatives) = Motion.

Now we just need to fold Matter into the picture and we will be getting somewhere!"

isnt space, matter? or is space space? and what really is the difference between space, matter, and mass?
 
oooh, if space equaled mass, then that would also mean that time would have to equal mass right? that probably isnt correct, but it gives me an idea. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
i am going to attempt to get into msu in january.
Click to expand...

Excellent, sir! I hope you get in too! Have you taken the SAT or (showing my age) the ACT?

Without those tests they may very well recommend you go to community college until you get the "basics" like advanced algebra and trigonometry under your belt to the point where you are confident in using them regularly.

But you've got the right idea... if at all possible, avoid community college and get those four years knocked out for your BS degree.

I understand about the midterm. Yes, it would be difficult to attack without the book, especially since I gave that test as open book and open notes. And oh yes... the last two parts of the last problem were things that were NOT in the book...I taught them in class based on how we do airspeed calibrations during flight test of a new airplane. So I don't expect you to get that part. But the first few parts of that problem almost directly mirror one of the example problems in the book (hint-hint!) :D

RMT
 
"Excellent, sir! I hope you get in too! Have you taken the SAT or (showing my age) the ACT?"

i took an act a long time ago, 4-5 yrs. ago, maybe even longer. i scored a 32 on it and was told that was very good. i plan on taking the act at msu sometime soon. i plan on doing alot better than the last time. i know alot of things on that test that i didnt know then, so it should be a breeze. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif


"I understand about the midterm. Yes, it would be difficult to attack without the book, especially since I gave that test as open book and open notes. And oh yes... the last two parts of the last problem were things that were NOT in the book...I taught them in class based on how we do airspeed calibrations during flight test of a new airplane. So I don't expect you to get that part. But the first few parts of that problem almost directly mirror one of the example problems in the book (hint-hint!)"

i should at least get credit for being able to build a r/c plane though! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

i had one, it was a stealth fighter design with two motors in the back. you could give gas to one motor to make it turn and full motors to make it acsend. it was junk, but was fun for me and taught me alot. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
TimeLord,

This sounds rather condescending.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Recall, Ray and I have had several conversations here about the fact that Recall didn't have the opportunity to go to college when he was younger. We've both encouraged him to enroll in his local commmunity college when the opportunity arises. He has a good mind that will benefit from school. It's fun to have a knack - its even more fun to be able to expand your knack into full potential.

Ray wants him to be an engineer. I'm hoping for physicist.


Seriously, though, I've had the opportunity to know several mature adults who had to wait until they were in their 30's or older to get the chance to go back to school. Kids, work...life's general responsibilities...put it on hold. But when they went back as "real" adults they had life experience, were better equipped to withstand the pressure of high education, were much more serious students, less likely to party their time away and were much, much less likely to have profesors tell them what to think rather than how to think. They were able to reasonably breeze through after their first year back. I guess that's the advantag of actually having some tools in the tool box when they start up. A typical 18 year old freshman is lucky to have a roll of duct tape in the tool box.
 
Yes time is decay but theoretically speaking what if the card simply folded in on itself from non direct influence I.E. no apparent expenditure of energy sounds impossible when you think in 3 dimensions but toss others in the mix with non relative forces being applied. Have a cold one and think about it.

Why is gravity the weakest force in this universe anyhow /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
yes it is, time is a transfer of energy between two or more reference frames. it comes from the second law of time that states that space-time or time will move energy in a frame by frame motion until it reaches its original state it was created.

force of time = {[m/(1-(v^2/c^2))^1/2]-m}a

energy of time = {[m/(1-(v^2/c^2))^1/2]-m}c^2

wavelength of time = {{[m/(1-(v^2/c^2))^1/2]-m}c^2}/h
 
Satown,

Just trying to understand what you are trying to say though your equation from the big picture. So basically your saying there is finite energy in the system in this world. So when a time frame ends the past constructs must die and de-manifest, correct and also the future does not exist thus no energy thus pure vapor. And the now has all the energy to manifest the present. So to keep the past alive due to the conservation of energy must cycle though the past to keep it alive as you said in term of cycling though time frames in frame by frame motion. The cycling of time frame is required due to the conversation of energy since there is not enough energy to power all frames. So to finish here the past and the future does not exist from time travel point of view and thus time travel is not possible. The only way time traveling can be feasible is if energy cycle from past to future all the time or the thing that only exists is the now.
 
yes it is, time is a transfer of energy between two or more reference frames. it comes from the second law of time that states that space-time or time will move energy in a frame by frame motion until it reaches its original state it was created.
Click to expand...

satown,

I think that it might be helpful to explain that there is no "second law of time" per se. Rather, it's a term that you invented. (No problem inventing good new terms - scientists do it al lthe time.)

And you might want to fully explain your equations.

The way you have them set up you're simply calculating the relativistic mass (m/(1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2), subtracting from it the rest mass (m) and then multiplying the change in mass, in order, by "a" (acceleration ); c^2 (the speed of light) and 1/h (I'm assuming that to be the inverse of Planck's Constant).

What you don't explain is how each equation is a statement of the force, energy or wavelength of time,what those terms actually mean and what you mean by "frame by frame motion" and "it reaches its original state it was created".
 
satown,

Another point:

Your first equation seems to be a relativistic form of F = ma. The classical Newtonian equation for force generally doesn't work in Special Relativity.

The equation that does generally hold in Special Relativity is:

F = dP/dt

Even this equation has to handled with some care. In Special Relativity the force can be stated as a 3-vector or a 4-vector.
 
Back
Top