• Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is

    From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to rhertz on Wed Apr 23 16:56:58 2025
    On 4/23/2025 4:51 PM, rhertz wrote:
    No humans have been able to observe time or register the pass of time.

    Time is an illusion, it doesn't exist.

    Time as an idiot physicist imagines it - sure.
    TAI, UTC, zone times and so on exist for real,
    however.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to rhertz on Thu Apr 24 03:04:36 2025
    On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 14:51:47 +0000, rhertz wrote:

    No humans have been able to observe time or register the pass of time.

    Time is an illusion, it doesn't exist. Yet, science depends on almost exclusively time as a dimension. Like in GR spacetime, claiming time as
    the fourth dimension is beyond stupid. Science relies on the
    mathematical construct of the flow of time, so theories can go beyond a specific observation in a given instance.

    If humans CAN'T OBSERVE OR FEEL TIME, which is the actual value of the
    use of time as a fundamental variable?

    And this applies to every single human activity, covering all what we
    do.

    So, when results considering time are presented to humans, their
    gullible idiocy force them to accept that such results have any meaning.

    We adore and worship a dimension that we can't feel or observe, and
    that's the way the civilization has evolved.

    Yet, the lack of ability of humans to feel or observe time plus the mismanagement of memory has condemned mankind to forget history, so most
    of the humans repeat errors without pause.

    If we don't have the capacity to record, entirely, our lives, and we constantly forget or distort any kind of historical event or punctual
    fact, we deserve the future that is being built around sentient robots, networked and powered with AI.

    We failed as a specie, and we'll pay it dearly in the near future and
    beyond.

    Do you imagine the world functioning in 2030? Really?
    Time is an abstraction, a comparison of rates of change.
    So people can observe and feel the passing of time.

    The rate of change of a muon is only one rate of change and not time
    itself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 24 04:11:10 2025
    On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 14:56:58 +0000, Maciej Woźniak wrote:

    On 4/23/2025 4:51 PM, rhertz wrote:
    No humans have been able to observe time or register the pass of time.

    Time is an illusion, it doesn't exist.

    Time as an idiot physicist imagines it - sure.
    TAI, UTC, zone times and so on exist for real,
    however.
    In order to compare the rates of change an absolute universal standard
    must be employed. Time is like astronomical commensuration cycles as the
    number of years in which the lunations are an even number with the year.
    E.g. the Metonic cycle of 19 years and 235 months.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to rhertz on Thu Apr 24 00:17:45 2025
    rhertz wrote:

    No humans have been able to observe time or register the pass of time.

    Time is an illusion, it doesn't exist. Yet, science depends on almost exclusively time as a dimension. Like in GR spacetime, claiming time as
    the fourth dimension is beyond stupid. Science relies on the
    mathematical construct of the flow of time, so theories can go beyond a specific observation in a given instance.

    If humans CAN'T OBSERVE OR FEEL TIME, which is the actual value of the
    use of time as a fundamental variable?

    And this applies to every single human activity, covering all what we
    do.

    So, when results considering time are presented to humans, their
    gullible idiocy force them to accept that such results have any meaning.

    We adore and worship a dimension that we can't feel or observe, and
    that's the way the civilization has evolved.

    Yet, the lack of ability of humans to feel or observe time plus the mismanagement of memory has condemned mankind to forget history, so most
    of the humans repeat errors without pause.

    If we don't have the capacity to record, entirely, our lives, and we constantly forget or distort any kind of historical event or punctual
    fact, we deserve the future that is being built around sentient robots, networked and powered with AI.

    We failed as a specie, and we'll pay it dearly in the near future and
    beyond.

    Do you imagine the world functioning in 2030? Really?

    Does the world...function?

    Okay, Time is an illusion..

    but, but...something is wrong which I haven't heard from anyone..

    when exactly does the Future start?

    a second from now? a minute from now? an hour from Now? Tomorrow?? Next
    week???

    When exactly does the future start?


    If I have to use my senses...it appears to me to be a little far away
    from now.


    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Thu Apr 24 10:02:57 2025
    On 4/24/2025 9:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
    rhertz wrote:

    No humans have been able to observe time or register the pass of time.

    Time is an illusion, it doesn't exist. Yet, science depends on almost
    exclusively time as a dimension. Like in GR spacetime, claiming time as
    the fourth dimension is beyond stupid. Science relies on the
    mathematical construct of the flow of time, so theories can go beyond a
    specific observation in a given instance.

    If humans CAN'T OBSERVE OR FEEL TIME, which is the actual value of the
    use of time as a fundamental variable?

    And this applies to every single human activity, covering all what we
    do.

    So, when results considering time are presented to humans, their
    gullible idiocy force them to accept that such results have any meaning.

    We adore and worship a dimension that we can't feel or observe, and
    that's the way the civilization has evolved.

    Yet, the lack of ability of humans to feel or observe time plus the
    mismanagement of memory has condemned mankind to forget history, so most
    of the humans repeat errors without pause.

    If we don't have the capacity to record, entirely, our lives, and we
    constantly forget or distort any kind of historical event or punctual
    fact, we deserve the future that is being built around sentient robots,
    networked and powered with AI.

    We failed as a specie, and we'll pay it dearly in the near future and
    beyond.

    Do you imagine the world functioning in 2030? Really?

    Does the world...function?

    Okay, Time is an illusion..

    but, but...something is wrong which I haven't heard from anyone..

    when exactly does the Future start?

    a second from now? a minute from now? an hour from Now? Tomorrow?? Next week???

    When exactly does the future start?

    Exactly now.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 24 10:21:30 2025
    Den 23.04.2025 16:51, skrev rhertz:
    No humans have been able to observe time or register the pass of time.

    Time is an illusion, it doesn't exist. Yet, science depends on almost exclusively time as a dimension. Like in GR spacetime, claiming time as
    the fourth dimension is beyond stupid. Science relies on the
    mathematical construct of the flow of time, so theories can go beyond a specific observation in a given instance.

    If humans CAN'T OBSERVE OR FEEL TIME, which is the actual value of the
    use of time as a fundamental variable?

    What Richard Hertz can feel or not can feel is irrelevant to physics.

    In physics "time" is a well defined, measurable entity.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf


    And this applies to every single human activity, covering all what we
    do.

    So, when results considering time are presented to humans, their
    gullible idiocy force them to accept that such results have any meaning.

    We adore and worship a dimension that we can't feel or observe, and
    that's the way the civilization has evolved.

    Yet, the lack of ability of humans to feel or observe time plus the mismanagement of memory has condemned mankind to forget history, so most
    of the humans repeat errors without pause.

    If we don't have the capacity to record, entirely, our lives, and we constantly forget or distort any kind of historical event or punctual
    fact, we deserve the future that is being built around sentient robots, networked and powered with AI.

    We failed as a specie, and we'll pay it dearly in the near future and
    beyond.

    Do you imagine the world functioning in 2030? Really?

    You are more irrational than ever.

    Is your point:
    "The fact that humans can't feel time, proves that
    physics, including SR and GR, is meaningless nonsense."

    ?

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Thu Apr 24 10:19:28 2025
    On 4/24/2025 10:21 AM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    What Richard Hertz can feel or not can feel is irrelevant to physics.

    In physics "time" is a well defined, measurable entity.

    What Paul B. Andersen can feel is
    a moronic lie from a brainwashed idiot.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jerald Huranov Meng@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Thu Apr 24 12:19:09 2025
    gharnagel wrote:

    n Wed, 23 Apr 2025 21:08:06 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
    Assume nothing else exists but space. Then say what space is.

    Exactly! What is SPACE?

    I've been reading an old book (1999) by Brian Green, "The Elegant
    Universe" where he was preaching string theory. I'm reading about

    both wrong. The string theory is mental masturbation. Muchos gracias.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to rhertz on Thu Apr 24 21:04:19 2025
    On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 14:51:47 +0000, rhertz wrote:

    No humans have been able to observe time or register the pass of time.

    Time is an illusion, it doesn't exist. Yet, science depends on almost exclusively time as a dimension. Like in GR spacetime, claiming time as
    the fourth dimension is beyond stupid. Science relies on the
    mathematical construct of the flow of time, so theories can go beyond a specific observation in a given instance.

    If humans CAN'T OBSERVE OR FEEL TIME, which is the actual value of the
    use of time as a fundamental variable?

    And this applies to every single human activity, covering all what we
    do.

    So, when results considering time are presented to humans, their
    gullible idiocy force them to accept that such results have any meaning.

    We adore and worship a dimension that we can't feel or observe, and
    that's the way the civilization has evolved.

    Yet, the lack of ability of humans to feel or observe time plus the mismanagement of memory has condemned mankind to forget history, so most
    of the humans repeat errors without pause.

    If we don't have the capacity to record, entirely, our lives, and we constantly forget or distort any kind of historical event or punctual
    fact, we deserve the future that is being built around sentient robots, networked and powered with AI.

    We failed as a specie, and we'll pay it dearly in the near future and
    beyond.

    Do you imagine the world functioning in 2030? Really?
    There is an excellent book I like written by a famous scholar Martin
    Nilsson called Primitive Time Reckoning. It would be a step up for them
    if the relativists were to study it. Even animals have a better
    understanding of time than relativists.
    "The corpse flower, also known as the Titan Arum, blooms irregularly,
    typically every 7 to 10 years."

    "In Los Angeles, California, the 2025 17-year cicada emergence is not
    expected to occur. Brood XIV, a large group of 17-year cicadas, will
    emerge in a dozen states in the Eastern United States, including states
    like New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Los Angeles is not in the
    Brood XIV range."

    "In the Philippines, the periodic breeding of sea urchins, specifically Tripneustes gratilla, is typically observed from June to November, with
    a major peak in November."

    Time is real because time = distance/ speed. e.g. 2 hours = 60 miles/ 30
    mph.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Thu Apr 24 22:13:57 2025
    On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 8:21:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 23.04.2025 16:51, skrev rhertz:

    No humans have been able to observe time or register the pass of time.

    Time is an illusion, it doesn't exist. Yet, science depends on almost exclusively time as a dimension. Like in GR spacetime, claiming time
    as
    the fourth dimension is beyond stupid. Science relies on the
    mathematical construct of the flow of time, so theories can go beyond
    a
    specific observation in a given instance.

    If humans CAN'T OBSERVE OR FEEL TIME, which is the actual value of the
    use of time as a fundamental variable?

    What Richard Hertz can feel or not can feel is irrelevant to physics.

    In physics "time" is a well defined, measurable entity.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf

    Just because we can measure it doesn't mean we understand it.
    And when we measure it, and different observers disagree with
    our measurement, and relativity "explains" the disagreement,
    might not really bring us closer to understanding it.

    I attended a lecture many years ago where it was explained that
    each of the four dimensions were really identical and we were
    always moving at the speed of light - along one of them. That
    one was our time dimension. That seemed to be very satisfying
    at the time. This would mean that there is a basic symmetry
    between time and space.

    More recently, some cracks in that view have appeared due to
    quantum mechanics. Vaccaro has published a couple of papers
    about "Quantum asymmetry between time and space," (2016)
    arXiv:1502.04012.

    One idea is that time reversal would be a tough problem for
    causality.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Fri Apr 25 06:54:28 2025
    On 4/25/2025 12:13 AM, gharnagel wrote:

    Just because we can measure it doesn't mean we understand it.
    And when we measure it, and different observers disagree with
    our measurement

    and you're spitting at and slandering them - that's
    what your absurd religion has trained its
    doggies for

    , and relativity "explains" the disagreement,
    might not really bring us closer to understanding it.\


    The mumble of your idiot guru wasn't even consistent,
    however.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 24 23:08:49 2025
    =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?= wrote:

    On 4/24/2025 9:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
    rhertz wrote:

    No humans have been able to observe time or register the pass of time.

    Time is an illusion, it doesn't exist. Yet, science depends on almost
    exclusively time as a dimension. Like in GR spacetime, claiming time as
    the fourth dimension is beyond stupid. Science relies on the
    mathematical construct of the flow of time, so theories can go beyond a
    specific observation in a given instance.

    If humans CAN'T OBSERVE OR FEEL TIME, which is the actual value of the
    use of time as a fundamental variable?

    And this applies to every single human activity, covering all what we
    do.

    So, when results considering time are presented to humans, their
    gullible idiocy force them to accept that such results have any meaning. >>
    We adore and worship a dimension that we can't feel or observe, and
    that's the way the civilization has evolved.

    Yet, the lack of ability of humans to feel or observe time plus the
    mismanagement of memory has condemned mankind to forget history, so most >> of the humans repeat errors without pause.

    If we don't have the capacity to record, entirely, our lives, and we
    constantly forget or distort any kind of historical event or punctual
    fact, we deserve the future that is being built around sentient robots,
    networked and powered with AI.

    We failed as a specie, and we'll pay it dearly in the near future and
    beyond.

    Do you imagine the world functioning in 2030? Really?

    Does the world...function?

    Okay, Time is an illusion..

    but, but...something is wrong which I haven't heard from anyone..

    when exactly does the Future start?

    a second from now? a minute from now? an hour from Now? Tomorrow?? Next week???

    When exactly does the future start?

    Exactly now.

    Don't you mean...later? Not now, ...later. In the very near future?
    still to come.


    Is the past Now? or, has it ...passed already?? gone by...


    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 25 20:54:41 2025
    Den 25.04.2025 00:13, skrev gharnagel:
    On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 8:21:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:


    In physics "time" is a well defined, measurable entity.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf


    Just because we can measure it doesn't mean we understand it.

    You can't 'understand' why Nature works as she does.
    A theory of physics is a mathematical model of an aspect of Nature.
    It doesn't 'explain' anything.

    The only test of a mathematical consistent theory
    is if it can correctly predict what will be measured in experiments.
    It takes but one wrong prediction to falsify a theory.

    And when we measure it, and different observers disagree with
    our measurement, and relativity "explains" the disagreement,
    might not really bring us closer to understanding it.

    Relativity (SR/GR) does obviously not "explain" anything.
    But SR/GR will correctly predict what the different observers
    will measure in experiments.

    If you think it is self-contradictory that different observers
    have different measurements of the observed object's properties,
    consider this:

    The observer's state of motion can not affect the observed object.
    But the observer's state of motion can affect the observer's
    measurements of the observed object's properties.


    I attended a lecture many years ago where it was explained that
    each of the four dimensions were really identical and we were
    always moving at the speed of light - along one of them.  That
    one was our time dimension.  That seemed to be very satisfying
    at the time.  This would mean that there is a basic symmetry
    between time and space.

    This is nonsense.


    Let "the moving object" be a clock.
    The metric in flat spacetime can be written:

    dτ² = dt² - (dx² + dy² + dz²)/c² (1)

    where τ is what the clock shows, c is the speed of light
    and t,x,y,z are the coordinates of an inertial frame of reference.

    from (1) we have:
    (dτ/dt)² = (1 - ((dx/dt)²+(dy/dt)²+(dz/dt)²)/c²) = (1−v²/c²) (2)

    where v = √((dx/dt)²+(dy/dt)²+(dz/dt)²) is the magnitude of
    the moving object's velocity.

    from (2) we have:
    dt/dτ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²) = γ

    Let the velocity of the clock be:
    v₁ = dx/dt component along x-axis
    v₂ = dy/dt component along y-axis
    v₃ = dz/dt component along z-axis

    The components of the four-velocity will be:
    U₀ = dt/dτ = γ component along the time axis
    U₁ = dx/dτ = (dx/dt)⋅(dt/dτ) = γ⋅v₁ component along the x-axis
    U₂ = dy/dτ = (dy/dt)⋅(dt/dτ) = γ⋅v₂ component along the y-axis
    U₃ = dx/dτ = (dz/dt)⋅(dt/dτ) = γ⋅v₃ component along the z-axis

    If v = 0, the object is stationary and γ = 1.
    U₀ = 1, U₁ = 0, U₂ = 0, U₃ = 0

    So the "rate of the clock along the time axis" is 1.

    That does _not_ mean that the clock is moving at the speed
    of light along the time axis (what a weird idea ).

    It simply means that the clock is ticking at its normal
    rate, one time unit per time unit.

    The four "dimensions" are _not_ identical, the temporal "dimension"
    is fundamentally different from the spatial "dimensions".


    It can be shown that the magnitude of th four-velocity is invariant:

    U = - U₀² + U₁² + U₂² + U₃² = -1


    More recently, some cracks in that view have appeared due to
    quantum mechanics.  Vaccaro has published a couple of papers
    about "Quantum asymmetry between time and space," (2016)
    arXiv:1502.04012.

    One idea is that time reversal would be a tough problem for
    causality.


    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Fri Apr 25 22:47:23 2025
    On 4/25/2025 8:54 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
    Den 25.04.2025 00:13, skrev gharnagel:
    On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 8:21:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:


    In physics "time" is a well defined, measurable entity.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf


    Just because we can measure it doesn't mean we understand it.

    You can't 'understand' why Nature works as she does.
    A theory of physics is a mathematical model of an aspect of Nature.
    It doesn't 'explain' anything.

    The only test of a mathematical consistent theory
    is if it can correctly predict what will be measured in experiments.


    And as a proof that's the only test - a relativistic
    idiot can insult and slander anyone who disagree.

    Fortunately, The Shit of his insane guru is not a
    consistent theory.


    Relativity (SR/GR) does obviously not "explain" anything.
    But SR/GR will correctly predict what the different observers
    will measure in experiments.

    A lie, of course - anyone can check GPS.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Sat Apr 26 03:36:54 2025
    On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 18:54:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 25.04.2025 00:13, skrev gharnagel:

    On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 8:21:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:


    In physics "time" is a well defined, measurable entity.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf

    Just because we can measure it doesn't mean we understand it.

    You can't 'understand' why Nature works as she does.
    A theory of physics is a mathematical model of an aspect of Nature.
    It doesn't 'explain' anything.

    I believe you are "misunderstanding" me. It is possible to under-
    stand why a theory works when you have experimental evidence for
    the inputs to that theory. For SR we have the principle of rela-
    tivity, the constancy of the speed of light, etc. Application of
    those postulates (i.e., determined by measurements) allows us to
    understand why time dilation happens. We don't understand why
    the principles exist -- at present. We may someday, but those
    will be based on some other measurements that we don't understand
    why nature works that way.

    The only test of a mathematical consistent theory is if it can
    correctly predict what will be measured in experiments.
    It takes but one wrong prediction to falsify a theory.

    Of course, but that one wrong prediction must be a GOOD prediction,
    not one invented by an incompetent. And if it turns out to BE a
    good prediction, it will likely be based on different postulates.
    Same with a good measurement.

    And when we measure it, and different observers disagree with
    our measurement, and relativity "explains" the disagreement,
    might not really bring us closer to understanding it.

    Relativity (SR/GR) does obviously not "explain" anything.
    But SR/GR will correctly predict what the different observers
    will measure in experiments.

    If you think it is self-contradictory that different observers
    have different measurements of the observed object's properties,
    consider this:

    The observer's state of motion can not affect the observed object.
    But the observer's state of motion can affect the observer's
    measurements of the observed object's properties.

    Again, you misunderstand me. You are preaching to the choir.

    I attended a lecture many years ago where it was explained that
    each of the four dimensions were really identical and we were
    always moving at the speed of light - along one of them.  That
    one was our time dimension.  That seemed to be very satisfying
    at the time.  This would mean that there is a basic symmetry
    between time and space.

    This is nonsense.

    No, it's not (but I disagree with it)

    To play devil's advocate, what that lecturer said is EXACTLY what
    the Minkowski diagram shows: The stationary observer begins at
    x = 0 and t = 0, but he doesn't STAY at t = 0. He is moving at a
    constant rate along the t-axis. Usually, the t and x-axes have
    the same scales (note: the speed of light is depicted at a 45 degree
    angle). Can you tell how fast he's moving along the t axis?

    Let "the moving object" be a clock.
    The metric in flat spacetime can be written:

    dτ² = dt² - (dx² + dy² + dz²)/c² (1)

    where τ is what the clock shows, c is the speed of light
    and t,x,y,z are the coordinates of an inertial frame of reference.

    from (1) we have:
    (dτ/dt)² = (1 - ((dx/dt)²+(dy/dt)²+(dz/dt)²)/c²) = (1−v²/c²) (2)

    where v = √((dx/dt)²+(dy/dt)²+(dz/dt)²) is the magnitude of
    the moving object's velocity.

    from (2) we have:
    dt/dτ = 1/√(1 − v²/c²) = γ

    Let the velocity of the clock be:
    v₁ = dx/dt component along x-axis
    v₂ = dy/dt component along y-axis
    v₃ = dz/dt component along z-axis

    The components of the four-velocity will be:
    U₀ = dt/dτ = γ component along the time axis
    U₁ = dx/dτ = (dx/dt)⋅(dt/dτ) = γ⋅v₁ component along the x-axis
    U₂ = dy/dτ = (dy/dt)⋅(dt/dτ) = γ⋅v₂ component along the y-axis
    U₃ = dx/dτ = (dz/dt)⋅(dt/dτ) = γ⋅v₃ component along the z-axis

    If v = 0, the object is stationary and γ = 1.
    U₀ = 1, U₁ = 0, U₂ = 0, U₃ = 0

    So the "rate of the clock along the time axis" is 1.

    That does _not_ mean that the clock is moving at the speed
    of light along the time axis (what a weird idea ).

    It simply means that the clock is ticking at its normal
    rate, one time unit per time unit.

    The four "dimensions" are _not_ identical, the temporal "dimension"
    is fundamentally different from the spatial "dimensions".

    Not on a Minkowski diagram. And your equations for four-velocity
    have left out the "dimensions" of the dimensions: they aren't simply
    v, they are v/c, so your dimensions are light-seconds/second, or
    such.

    It can be shown that the magnitude of th four-velocity is invariant:

    U[²] = - U₀² + U₁² + U₂² + U₃² = -1

    Yes, and to the stationary observer, the speed of the clock along U₀
    is no longer 1, it's shared with the speed along the spatial dimensions.
    To the clock, however, it's happily moving along its t' axis - at speed
    c.

    To reiterate, I don't go along with time being another spatial
    dimension,
    even though the Minkowski diagram AND the Lorentz transform treat it
    EXACTLY that way.

    BTW, it has been shown the four-vector notation is invalid for tachyons
    due to a nasty little error in the four-momentum derivation which nearly everyone has missed.

    Kapuscik, E., "On a Fatal Error in Tachyonic Physics," Intl. J. of
    Theor. Phys., 54, pp. 4041-4045 (2013). DOI:10.1007/s10773-014-2458-1. arXiv:1412.6010.

    G. L. Harnagel, "Tachyons, the Four-Momentum Formalism and
    Simultaneity,"
    Universal Journal of Physics and Application 17(1): 1-7, 2023
    DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.

    More recently, some cracks in that view have appeared due to
    quantum mechanics.  Vaccaro has published a couple of papers
    about "Quantum asymmetry between time and space," (2016)
    arXiv:1502.04012.

    One idea is that time reversal would be a tough problem for
    causality.

    Another is that mass-energy can be localized in space but not in time,
    else mass-energy is not conserved.

    So I totally agree with you, Paul, that time is NOT a spatial dimension.
    This means that using certain formalisms may bite you in the behind if
    you're not careful.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Fri Apr 25 22:39:37 2025
    gharnagel wrote:
    We don't understand why
    the principles exist -- at present. We may someday, but those
    will be based on some other measurements that we don't understand
    why nature works that way.


    Who is "We"????




    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Sat Apr 26 13:48:05 2025
    On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 5:39:37 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

    gharnagel wrote:

    We don't understand why the principles exist -- at present.
    We may someday, but those will be based on some other
    measurements that we don't understand why nature works that
    way.

    Who is "We"????

    I was speaking of the human race. Are you in or out?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Sat Apr 26 17:06:28 2025
    On 4/26/2025 3:48 PM, gharnagel wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 5:39:37 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

    gharnagel wrote:

      We don't understand why the principles exist -- at present.
      We may someday, but those will be based on some other
    measurements that we don't understand why nature works that
    way.

    Who is "We"????

    I was speaking of the human race.  Are you in or out?

    You really should limit yourself to speak
    in your own name, Harrie. No surprise, however,
    that such an arrogant idiot believes the humanity
    is speaking through his mouth.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thomas Heger@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 27 08:10:25 2025
    Am Freitag000025, 25.04.2025 um 00:13 schrieb gharnagel:
    On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 8:21:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 23.04.2025 16:51, skrev rhertz:

    No humans have been able to observe time or register the pass of time.

    Time is an illusion, it doesn't exist. Yet, science depends on almost
    exclusively time as a dimension. Like in GR spacetime, claiming time
    as
    the fourth dimension is beyond stupid. Science relies on the
    mathematical construct of the flow of time, so theories can go beyond
    a
    specific observation in a given instance.

    If humans CAN'T OBSERVE OR FEEL TIME, which is the actual value of the
    use of time as a fundamental variable?

    What Richard Hertz can feel or not can feel is irrelevant to physics.

    In physics "time" is a well defined, measurable entity.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf

    Just because we can measure it doesn't mean we understand it.
    And when we measure it, and different observers disagree with
    our measurement, and relativity "explains" the disagreement,
    might not really bring us closer to understanding it.

    I attended a lecture many years ago where it was explained that
    each of the four dimensions were really identical and we were
    always moving at the speed of light - along one of them.  That
    one was our time dimension.  That seemed to be very satisfying
    at the time.  This would mean that there is a basic symmetry
    between time and space.

    More recently, some cracks in that view have appeared due to
    quantum mechanics.  Vaccaro has published a couple of papers
    about "Quantum asymmetry between time and space," (2016)
    arXiv:1502.04012.

    One idea is that time reversal would be a tough problem for
    causality.

    You should think in terms of complex numbers (in three dimensions plus
    time).

    This is a 'rotatable' construct, which would allow an 'opposite world',
    where the local time there runs backwards for us.

    This is a 'geometric algebra' based on complex quaternions (also called 'complex-four-vectors').

    Now we have always only one direction of time, which is imaginary in any
    given context, but three real axes of space. Those are 'orthogonal' to
    the imaginary axis of time (because they are real).

    Now the trick is, that you can rotate the axis of time around and always
    get an 'orthogonal' space, but a different one for any axis of time.

    Now we could imagine an axis of time, which points backwards (in our view).

    This 'backwards time' had also an orthogonal space, which is filled with 'orthogonal' matter, too, which is 'anti-matter' in our view.

    That anti-world could pass right through everything we see, because it
    is invisible for us.

    This concept is actually a little strange, but could explain all sorts
    of strange findings.

    I have written kind of 'book' about this, hence you can have a look:

    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing


    TH

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Bakhmetev@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Sun Apr 27 20:49:51 2025
    gharnagel wrote:

    On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 2:05:44 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
    Did he (Green) explain the stuff clearly enough for the "interested
    amateurs? Like, for instance, how Sagan did.

    Depends on how interested the amateur is. When he gets into Calabi-Yao geometry he shows enough to let one know that here there be dragons.

    these two guys want to undrestand mathematics, lol. You never undrestand mathematics, just getting used to it. These scientists wants to undrestand wrong things.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to rhertz on Mon Apr 28 00:54:30 2025
    On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 23:45:21 +0000, rhertz wrote:

    Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time.

    Completely false. The word "observe" means much more than to SEE.
    An engineer observes what he doesn't see directly. Defaults in
    jet engines are observed but not seen. They observe voltages and
    currents without being electrocuted. And they observe time with
    clocks and frequency meters, etc.

    Science is an illusion.

    An engineer that doesn't understand technology has no business
    making such a ridiculous claim. He is delusional.

    This is the topic of this thread but some people didn't get it AT ALL.

    He also fails to understand that HE is the one who doesn't "get it."

    As a dimension, time is a human construct, an artificial one, and
    probably ill defined.

    Words are human constructs, and "dimension" is a word. Duh!

    You can't OBSERVE time as you can observer REAL SPATIAL DIMENSIONS.

    I observe spatial dimensions by seeing, true, but I also observe
    them instruments (e.g., laser distance meter). And airplanes are
    located with radar.

    If you place yourself in any given point (3D defined), you CAN
    OBSERVE ANY DIMENSION in its depth, if you mark the axis of
    observation with proper markers, equally spaced, until your sight
    can't see any deeper.

    You CAN'T OBSERVE TIME, because your brain CAN'T HOLD any account of
    this abstraction.

    Sure you can. Galileo used his pulse and pendulums. He also counted.

    If you say you could, such temporal point didn't exist
    one nanosecond after it.

    And you can't observe a virus (or its location) without an instrument.

    You CAN'T OBSERVE THE PASS OF TIME. Your human brain IS UNABLE to
    register on such flow of this "dimension", because you DON'T
    POSSESS THE ABILITY TO REGISTER EVENTS THAT EXIST DURING THE FLOW
    OF TIME. Your brain ISN'T POWERFUL ENOUGH AND HAVE NOT THE FOCUS
    TO REGISTER SUCH FLOW, which is given by the changes in objects
    in the surrounding environment as time flows. You can't even
    register your own biological markers, like your heartbeat,

    Galileo did.

    and gain consciousness about how time flows when you try to
    register it.

    Hertz must be unaware of the oscilloscope.

    This is one of the reasons because of which SPACETIME IS PURE CRAP.

    Spacetime may be incorrect, but not for the reasons Hertz rants about.

    “spacetime is likely to be an approximate description of something
    quite different.” – Steven Carlip

    Without even moving spatially, you would find (CONSTANTLY) changing 4D positions.

    Yeah, I went into that. Did Hertz read my comments about that and then plagiarized me?

    When I wrote that SCIENCE IS AN ILLUSION, it was not a random concept.

    Au contraire.

    Everything presented by science to you, IN ANY FORM AND IN ANY FIELD,
    is in THE PAST.

    Everything in the world that you experience is IN THE PAST. Even the
    last heartbeat that your brain registers.

    So, you have to believe,

    that you're still alive :_))

    not to register. That's why science is an illusion, and
    the proofs vanish in the past. THERE IS NOT NOW. GOT IT?

    I got it long before Hertz did. The difference is that he seems to
    believe that this somehow disproves "science." If his claim were
    valid, it would disprove LIFE. Anyone who believed his nonsense
    would immediately nip off and shoot themselves. Hopefully, no one
    is that stupid (if they were and if they did, I suppose it would
    improve the gene pool).

    What Hertz fails to understand is that science is KNOWLEDGE:

    "Science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the
    physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased
    observations and systematic experimentation."

    https://www.britannica.com/science/science

    All knowledge is in the past, so of course science is in the
    past Duh!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Hudson Muzrukov@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Mon Apr 28 11:03:28 2025
    gharnagel wrote:

    On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 23:45:21 +0000, rhertz wrote:

    Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time.

    Completely false. The word "observe" means much more than to SEE.

    he didnt say see. But he just need to stare into a mirror to see time.
    Very easy.

    disgusting nation, there in cacamerica. Are you a nation overthere, or
    it's something else.. It looks like jew trump fucked his sorry ass again.
    What a disgrace, such a fuck capitalist, he is "preparing.."

    White House preparing for possible Trump-Kim talks – Axios https://www.rt.com/news/616420-trump-kim-summit-axios/

    Since Obama got a Nobel Prize for carpet bombing Syria,

    You can’t take anything this guy says seriously anymore.

    I have full confidence in North Korea.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to rhertz on Mon Apr 28 18:52:40 2025
    On 4/28/2025 6:24 PM, rhertz wrote:
    I repeat:

    Humans have no abilities to OBSERVE the pass of time (or its flow, which
    is the same.

    In the case of spatial dimensions (xyz), we have such sensorial
    capabilities.

    But in the case of TIME, which is a human construct, our brain CAN'T
    REGISTER TIME

    Yes, it can - with a little help of clocks it designed.
    It's 18:51 CET right now.
    Not, of course, that the real time has much in common
    with the delusions of physicists or wannabe physicists.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to rhertz on Mon Apr 28 17:54:28 2025
    On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:24:56 +0000, rhertz wrote:

    I repeat:

    Repeating falsehoods does not make them true.

    Humans have no abilities to OBSERVE the pass of time (or its flow, which
    is the same.

    This is even too much for Maciej to swallow :-))

    In the case of spatial dimensions (xyz), we have such sensorial
    capabilities.

    But in the case of TIME, which is a human construct, our brain CAN'T
    REGISTER TIME (at any given instance)

    We have no instantaneous "sensorial" capabilities since all
    observations are in the past. Strange that some of us know
    this but others do not.

    NOR IT CAN OBSERVE HOW TIME FLOWS,
    even looking themselves in a mirror.

    Mirrors have nothing to do with it. All animals use their brains
    to remember the past. Some humans forget that.

    The cognitive capabilities to register time that we might have
    are ILLUSIONS that rapidly FADE AWAY.

    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,"
    -- George Santayana.

    "Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it".
    -- Winston Churchill

    Our brain can't process such information and, even less, REGISTER
    (through observations) how time flows within and around us, even
    when we chose a TICK large enough (say, 1 second lapse per obser-
    vation). We don't understand what HAPPENS BECAUSE EVERY CHANGE
    AROUND US is in the past, and we CAN'T PROCESS THE THREADS OF
    PAST OBSERVATIONS as it if was a movie played in reverse,
    choosing intervals at will.

    This says more about Hertz than the rest of the inhabitants of this
    planet.

    So, time IS AN ILLUSION, as well as any result that we might
    observe in a graph f(t). WE CAN'T REPRODUCE WHAT THE GRAPHIC
    CONTAINS,

    Apparently, Hertz has never heard of photography. Nor has he
    ever taken a photograph of an oscilloscope trace back in the
    old days (now you don't even need a camera, you just push a
    button).

    He doesn't understand that scientists DO reproduce phenomena to
    prove that they're repeatable, not ephemeral, not a mistake, and
    they have recordings to show it when memory is no longer green.

    SO WE CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IT'S TRUE.

    Scientist don't believe a phenomenon the first time it happens,
    they repeat it, they report it to others who also repeat it.
    After many have repeated it, THAT'S when belief becomes general.
    Then, the only ones who repeat it are in school laboratories,
    so it's repeated again and again and again and ....

    But seminal experiences seldom are forgotten. I have a cat that
    liked to jump the fence when she was a kitten, then strolled
    around and jumped into someone else's yard and couldn't figure
    out why she wasn't home. I installed an electric fence and she
    jumped the fence only ONCE after that. She landed on the side-
    walk, ran to the alley, ran down the alley to my driveway, ran
    up to the garage, jumped over the gate and back into the yard.
    She has NEVER tried to reproduce THAT! :-))

    I guess some memories, even in cats, DON'T fade away.

    Nobody, here or anywhere, can contradict THIS FACT.

    Hertz is wrong: I just did.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Josiah Turkov@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Mon Apr 28 23:00:29 2025
    gharnagel wrote:

    On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:24:56 +0000, rhertz wrote:
    NOR IT CAN OBSERVE HOW TIME FLOWS,
    even looking themselves in a mirror.

    Mirrors have nothing to do with it. All animals use their brains to
    remember the past. Some humans forget that.

    not true. A mirror is the closest you get to see time. Animals sense time,
    as they fight their image in a mirror in its past, different from the
    presents. When you stare a mirror you look into the past, hence the
    equations are delta s / delta t, where delta t is t_n - t_n-1. Very easy,
    piece of cake.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to rhertz on Tue Apr 29 07:55:17 2025
    On 4/29/2025 3:06 AM, rhertz wrote:
    Using on-the-shelf electronics, you can have AN IDEA about the flow of
    time.

    Oh, the IDEA is old, much older than any electronics.
    Anyway, clocks follow an IDEA, correct. "What clocks
    indicate" is an IDEA. Has nothing in common with
    any delusional "laws of Nature".


    Science is an illusion, so you are forced to believe (films,
    oscilloscopes, graph from experiments, etc.).

    No it is not an illusion. It is a piece of software,
    designed to control some hardware.


    But how do you know that such past events WERE REAL?

    I've been taught that, so I know.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From gharnagel@21:1/5 to rhertz on Tue Apr 29 12:44:02 2025
    On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 1:06:40 +0000, rhertz wrote:

    [boring irrelevant repetition deleted]

    So, WE CAN'T FEEL TIME NOR WE CAN OBSERVE THE FLOW OF TIME. No living
    specie can.

    I feel it, all animals do. They have better memories than Hertz.

    Science is an illusion,

    Repeating this falsehood still doesn't make it true. At the risk of
    repeating myself, Hertz hasn't presented a logical argument for this
    claim. Science is about past knowledge, duly recorded and vetted, so
    whether or not we can "observe the flow of time" is a non sequitur.

    so you are forced to believe (films, oscilloscopes, graph from
    experiments, etc.).

    Organic memory is not perfect so we have such extensions. Organic
    memory is basically no different from films, graphs, drawings, texts
    or silicon: it's ALL memory.

    But how do you know that such past events WERE REAL?

    How does one know anything is real? How does Hertz know HE is real?
    Ask Descartes. Cogito, ergo sum. Duh!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)