Fourth dimension=time?

Qfwfq · 05-28-2009

How many time does that change your IP during a single http request, without simply making the connection drop?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

The Leprechauns are smart because they plot back from the pot of gold at the finish and don't follow silly paradoxical optical illusions

So, you're telling me that you plot back from the brick wall?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

The real test of such a model would be to be able to formulate a method for plotting a missing source.

Gosh, you write your posts by translating from the Gaelic! Now I get it, you're a leprechaun yourself!

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

BTW, the easiest way is to catch a Leprachaun and get them to identify where their pot of gold is hidden. Some scientists are working on this as we speak.

Well that proves it, trying to throw me off with self-contradictory advice, and what could I expect from one of the leprechauns.

Scientists know darn well that "where the rainbow meets the ground" already does identify where their pot of gold is hidden. They also know that only leprechauns can reach said location (just as much as only they could ever plot back from it). They also know that it's impossible to "get them to" cooperate in any manner with a plunderer (and why should they anyway)?

Now, we simply don't fall for that, any more than for your denial of the brick wall's existence by challenging us to reach it.

arkain101 · 05-28-2009

Quote:

Arkain101, if your model can represent both the observer and source as having fixed locations as their initial start points then these can be used as points to anchor calculations based on their direction and velocity to plot their relative locations with regards to a time dimension.

I think I follow what you are saying. If I do, understand you correctly, then it suggest that my explanation did not communicate effective understanding.

There already is physics that: "represent both the observer and source as having fixed locations as their initial start points then these can be used as points to anchor calculations based on their direction and velocity to plot their relative locations with regards to a time dimension."

The values produced by the physics that already exist, provide a value for $n$ , that is otherwise unequivocally unknown.

What I am communicating is not a observer specific formula for physics, it is a superseding expression, one that overlays physics that already exist. A mother 'theory', pregnant with physics that determined by a confined observer.

It acknowledges that meaning is contrived from a relationship, while accepting, that meaning is not unique or universally recognized. And that when relationship has been excluded the remainder is the unknown $n$

Let me demonstrate as best as possible that I can an example.

In this case $n$ is representing $\gamma$ in a Lorentz transformation.

$\gamma = \frac{1}{ \sqrt{1 - { \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}} = n$

$\downarrow$

$e(e_{final,n}) = (e_{final,n}) =[ n(e_a), n(e_b) ]n = n(e_a), n(e_b) = (e_a, e_b)$

$\downarrow$

$e_f = (e_a, e_b)$

$\downarrow$

$e_f = \left(\frac{1}{ \sqrt{1 - { \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}}\right), \left(\frac{1}{ \sqrt{1 - { \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}}\right)$

Which simply reduces to:

$\downarrow$

$e_f = (a_\gamma), (b_\gamma)$

Where $e_f$ is meaning (in finalized form, where a finalized observation has been performed, where work is done). It describes that meaning is produced and realized in its finalized form, when one (of the minimum "two") part of the relationship has become observer of focus. This particular meaning specifically would be "Lorentz Factor"

Let me explain more simply.

If I take a rock and let it roll down a hill, and smash into a car, and the car slides 1meter. The rock has done work.

But why has it done work when there is two equally valid parts in this relationship. It is because we gave focus to one observer, and provided a "JOB" for the rock. But if we think of this in a unified manner, the car also did work, it stopped the rock over a distance of two meters, in other words the car applied force over a certain distance. But in the way we define work, this would be useless work, because work is usually not applied in the stopping of things, applied to the moving of things.

In the unified view (this model if you will) both events occur, and both events = meaning, but there is no final meaning untill the observer creates it. And the observer only creates it because he has demanded it.

In otherwords this is a similar but crude conception of Doctor Dicks fundamental equation (if my guess serves me correct).

Pyrotex · 05-28-2009

Listen guys.
There's an easier way around this.
We just pass a law that says that NOTHING bigger than the nucleas of an atom is allowed to go faster than 100 km per second. That's it! All this relativity stuff goes totally away. Except for those wierdos at CERN, but who cares a shit what they think?

arkain101 · 05-28-2009

That does not seem like a way around, that seems like a u turn.

LaurieAG · 05-29-2009

Hi Q,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

How many time does that change your IP during a single http request, without simply making the connection drop?

My webmail usually tells me that my IP has changed during the session and asks me to log in again, a bit difficult when I'm trying to log out. If I edit a post and then add an image and then try to save my IP can change 3 times (at least). If I try to edit a post it loses the plot entirely, an endless loop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

So, you're telling me that you plot back from the brick wall?

Leprechauns and seconds from the BB people do, how do you think they find their paradoxical pot o gold at the end of the rainbow, I don't believe in the brick wall. So you do agree that Cosmologists think that there is a brick wall?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Scientists know darn well that "where the rainbow meets the ground" already does identify where their pot of gold is hidden. They also know that only leprechauns can reach said location (just as much as only they could ever plot back from it). They also know that it's impossible to "get them to" cooperate in any manner with a plunderer (and why should they anyway)?

So you know that Leprechauns and Cosmologists have several things in common, is that your point? it was mine. Apparently they also do tricky things like letting you tie a piece of string where their pot o gold is hidden, when you come back with the shovel they've tied bloody strings everywhere. Some scientists have an interesting theory for this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

Now, we simply don't fall for that, any more than for your denial of the brick wall's existence by challenging us to reach it.

If you read my original post I say that the brick wall doesn't exist and that things that cannot be measured are in the realm of philosophy not science.

BTW, do you know the real story about the Leprechauns, the little people?

They were actually the people that were there before the celtic wave of invaders (Tuatha du Dannan, people of the goddess Danu, even though there were other people before them etc). They lived in and built the stone ring forts that dot the countryside in Ireland and were supposed to have gone underground when they were defeated by the (spanish) celts. Many of these forts had underground storage areas and drains that were used, apart from their obvious purpose, to sneak up behind beseigers and surprise them.

My ancestors came from an area in Ireland where there were plenty of ring forts and incidentally, the only norse runestone not in norse territory. The little people is a modern misnomer because the archaelolgical evidence points to a race that was around 6 foot in height, much taller than the romans and celts of the time.

What I find most interesting about the people that you call Leprechauns is that they build at least 2 sets of 4 ringforts in straight lines in County Clare, well before venus was used as an observational aid in the relatively recent survey of India from sea level to the top of mount everest. But somehow I don't think they were plotting venus as the ones on the Arran Islands line up with the setting sun and also a large open cut silver deposit on the side of a mountain. I'd say that these 'Leprechauns' were plotting incoming objects.

LaurieAG · 05-29-2009

Good one Pyro,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Listen guys.
There's an easier way around this.
We just pass a law that says that NOTHING bigger than the nucleas of an atom is allowed to go faster than 100 km per second. That's it! All this relativity stuff goes totally away. Except for those wierdos at CERN, but who cares a shit what they think?

Have we got anything that travels faster than 360,000 km per hour, apart from the speed of thought? (that 'thought' was from a norse saga not a Leprechaun story).

Qfwfq · 05-29-2009

So I guessed right! You really are a leprechaun!

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

So you do agree that Cosmologists think that there is a brick wall?

No, they only believe in the Yellow Brick Road. Especially the Australian cosmologists. I believe in the brick wall every bit as much as in the pot of gold. I wasn't talking about cosmologists yesterday when I said that we don't fall for your denial of it.

Don't you think that's enough now, Laurie?

LaurieAG · 05-29-2009

Hi Q,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

I believe in the brick wall every bit as much as in the pot of gold. I wasn't talking about cosmologists yesterday when I said that we don't fall for your denial of it.

I gather that you don't believe in the pot of gold or the brick wall, like me, because you don't explicitly state that you do, I would if I did, but I don't quite understand the second bit, you cannot have it both ways?

If you thought that you had your Leprechaun cornered along with the location of the desired pot of gold, and the bloody Leprechaun jumps out of a hole in the ground behind you and shoves a sharp spear up your date, would you still believe in Leprechauns if you didn't see anything?

freeztar · 05-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

If you thought that you had your Leprechaun cornered along with the location of the desired pot of gold, and the bloody Leprechaun jumps out of a hole in the ground behind you and shoves a sharp spear up your date, would you still believe in Leprechauns if you didn't see anything?

Can we lose the leprechaun metaphor? It's way off-topic.
As a reminder, the topic is *not* "Cosmologists are no better than Leprechauns".
The topic is "Fourth dimension=time".

modest · 05-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

And cosmologists think that this brick wall is 13.7 billion LY away too.

The Hubble length is not 13.7 lightyears (which I assume you found by multiplying c by the age of the universe) although it is surprisingly close—it is larger. And,, the particle horizon is even further. Neither are considered a physical boundary by any competent cosmologist.

~modest

*** EDIT ****

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeztar

The topic is "Fourth dimension=time".

Sorry, I missed your post. You are correct, my bad.

Fourth dimension=time?

Hypography?

Share the love!

Sponsors

Friends