Čas je matematična količina?

Prapok, vesolje, kozmologija, črne luknje...
Odgovori
derik
Prispevkov: 2042
Pridružen: 6.3.2010 9:04

Re: ČAS JE MATEMATIČNA KOLIČINA

Odgovor Napisal/-a derik » 7.1.2013 14:16

TimeEinstein napisal/-a:fantje vi ste ven iz teme.......tu je tama čas....dajte kaj o tem :D
O času si ti že vse povedaj, in to po večkrat. Sem vzel na znanje, da je tvoje mnenje pač tako in to mi zadostuje.

Uporabniški avatar
bargo
Prispevkov: 7106
Pridružen: 3.11.2004 22:41

Re: ČAS JE MATEMATIČNA KOLIČINA

Odgovor Napisal/-a bargo » 18.1.2013 21:44

STAR WARS !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDIBchVxSmE

p.s.
Nobelova nagrada ! :oops:

Uporabniški avatar
bargo
Prispevkov: 7106
Pridružen: 3.11.2004 22:41

Re: ČAS JE MATEMATIČNA KOLIČINA

Odgovor Napisal/-a bargo » 1.4.2015 18:52

Roman napisal/-a:
bargo napisal/-a:Kaj je tisto kaj se spreminja znotraj resničnosti ?
Vsak del resničnosti je določen z mestom in hitrostjo. To dvoje pa je tudi to, kar se spreminja.
Če tako, potem temu rečem vera, ker obojega hkrati ne moremo natanko izmeriti. Niti v (po našem) principu ni mogoče.
Roman napisal/-a:
bargo napisal/-a: Ali je resničnost ("Pravila narave") nesprejemljiva, absolutna ?
Najbrž si hotel reči "nespremenljiva". Če so pravila narave spremenljiva, so najbrž naključna. Teh pa (tudi v kvantni) naravi ne opažamo.
Oboje je naša domneva. Kaj nalaga, da bi spreminjajoča se pravila pomenila naključnost oz. da bi jih lahko samo naključnost generirala? Tudi iz dosedanjih opažanj ne moremo z gotovostjo trditi, da se pravila niso ali se ne bodo ali celo, da se ne, spreminjajo. Skratka domnevamo, da bi lahko bilo tako, vendar vesolje se vendar ne odziva na naše domneve. Videti je, da se odziva samo na naša vprašanja. :wink: Torej jasno je, da nismo dovolj bistri, da bi odgovarjali, mogoče smo dovolj bistri, da lahko sprašujemo, čeprav nam tudi to ne gre najbolje. :roll:
Roman napisal/-a:
bargo napisal/-a: Resničnost dojemam, kot nekaj kar JE. Realnost je tisto kar izkušamo, merimo, opazujemo. Skratka, poskušamo prepoznati resničnost !
Realnost in resničnost sta dve besedi za isti pojem. Seveda pa je umestno vprašanje, kako globoko zmoremo v resničnost prodreti s svojim raziskovanjem oziroma spoznavanjem.
Ne, realnost in resničnost nista dve besedi za isti pojem, kar sem poskušal razmejiti, vendar mi očitno ni uspelo. :roll: Kdo pa pravi, da zmoremo vse izmeriti? Tistega česar še nismo prepoznali, ne vemo niti da je, kaj šele, da bi vedeli kako izmeriti, če sploh. Recimo, nevtrini, kozmično sevanje itd. že vsaj nakazujejo, da je nekaj več.

Roman
Prispevkov: 5540
Pridružen: 21.10.2003 8:03

Re: ČAS JE MATEMATIČNA KOLIČINA

Odgovor Napisal/-a Roman » 2.4.2015 6:54

bargo napisal/-a:Kaj nalaga, da bi spreminjajoča se pravila pomenila naključnost oz. da bi jih lahko samo naključnost generirala?
Mislim, da je napačno reči, da bi lahko naključnost karkoli generirala. Naključnost ni nič takega, kar bi lahko karkoli generirala. Jaz trdim, da če so pravila spremenljiva, so naključna. Če ne bi bila naključna, bi se spreminjala po nekem pravilu, in smo spet na začetku.
Tudi iz dosedanjih opažanj ne moremo z gotovostjo trditi, da se pravila niso ali se ne bodo ali celo, da se ne, spreminjajo.
Ne, a spreminjanja pravil nismo opazili, niti jih nismo teoretično napovedali.
Videti je, da se odziva samo na naša vprašanja.
Tudi to ne. Odziva (pa ne v poosebljenem smislu) se na naša dejanja.
Torej jasno je, da nismo dovolj bistri ...
Jasno, vendar smo vsak dan bolj.
Ne, realnost in resničnost nista dve besedi za isti pojem, kar sem poskušal razmejiti, vendar mi očitno ni uspelo.
Ti tudi ni moglo uspeti, saj sploh nisi povedal, kaj pod obojim misliš, oziroma kakšna naj bi bila razlika.
Kdo pa pravi, da zmoremo vse izmeriti?
Ne vem.
Recimo, nevtrini, kozmično sevanje itd. že vsaj nakazujejo, da je nekaj več.
Vendar pa ne, da je to "nekaj več" nadnaravno.

TimeEinstein
Prispevkov: 643
Pridružen: 26.4.2011 0:00
Kontakt:

Re: Čas je matematična količina?

Odgovor Napisal/-a TimeEinstein » 26.4.2015 8:02

tuji tisk o času, eni očitno že razumejo, čas resnice o času je blizu
http://cosmoso.net/time-fourth-dimension-or-nah/ :D

problemi
Prispevkov: 4931
Pridružen: 24.8.2009 1:20

Re: Čas je matematična količina?

Odgovor Napisal/-a problemi » 26.4.2015 11:11

TimeEinstein napisal/-a:tuji tisk o času, eni očitno že razumejo, čas resnice o času je blizu
http://cosmoso.net/time-fourth-dimension-or-nah/ :D
Srecko, si tako dober, da v bodoce zaprosis avtorja-e clanka, da tebe in tvojega kolega omeni takoj v zacetku clanka, da mi ne bo potrebno po nepotrebnem brati skoraj polovice clanka. Hvala


Uporabniški avatar
shrink
Prispevkov: 14100
Pridružen: 4.9.2004 18:45

Re: Čas je matematična količina?

Odgovor Napisal/-a shrink » 28.4.2015 17:00

Zgolj še en hobi fizik.


Uporabniški avatar
shrink
Prispevkov: 14100
Pridružen: 4.9.2004 18:45

Re: Čas je matematična količina?

Odgovor Napisal/-a shrink » 16.5.2015 9:40

Podnapisi: pogovori o šarlatanstvu.

TimeEinstein
Prispevkov: 643
Pridružen: 26.4.2011 0:00
Kontakt:

Re: Čas je matematična količina?

Odgovor Napisal/-a TimeEinstein » 16.5.2015 20:51

srink ti si čist navaden idiot,
ki nima pojma o pojmu
naj ti bog stoji ob strani
ti si resnični intelektualni revež :!:

Uporabniški avatar
celica
Prispevkov: 766
Pridružen: 3.1.2006 22:08
Kontakt:

Re: Čas je matematična količina?

Odgovor Napisal/-a celica » 16.5.2015 22:11

TimeEinstein
Torej za tebe v naravi ne obstaja čas. Al pa sem narobe razumel.
Zdej me pa zanima, kako se pa potem narava razvija, če ne v času?(pa pustiva
matematiko,ker matematika nima nič pri razvoju narave.)
Prav imaš edino to,da čas je lahko samo trenutno, sam to ni nič novega.

bianko
Prispevkov: 577
Pridružen: 15.12.2002 17:00

Re: Čas je matematična količina?

Odgovor Napisal/-a bianko » 17.5.2015 9:32

TimeEinstein napisal/-a:naj ti bog stoji ob strani
Shrink, bog osebno ti bo stal ob strani :D

Uporabniški avatar
bargo
Prispevkov: 7106
Pridružen: 3.11.2004 22:41

Re: Čas je matematična količina?

Odgovor Napisal/-a bargo » 17.5.2015 10:04

bianko napisal/-a:
TimeEinstein napisal/-a:naj ti bog stoji ob strani
Shrink, bog osebno ti bo stal ob strani :D
Žal samo v kopalnici. :lol: :D

Uporabniški avatar
shrink
Prispevkov: 14100
Pridružen: 4.9.2004 18:45

Re: Čas je matematična količina?

Odgovor Napisal/-a shrink » 17.5.2015 10:36

TimeEinstein napisal/-a:srink ti si čist navaden idiot,
ki nima pojma o pojmu
naj ti bog stoji ob strani
ti si resnični intelektualni revež
amRIT, naj ti te izvirne "pohvale" vrnem s "pohvalami", ki jih je tvoja pojava doživela na tujejezičnih forumih:
Translation : "I'm either too stupid or too lazy to learn any relativity before I start whining about how all of science is wrong and I'm right and now I'd rather someone else put in the effort to explain it to me than I spend one iota of time and effort actually reading and learning from a book".
A meaningless (and oxymoronic) concept.
With herculean emphasis on the 'moronic .
Cranks always believe that, and they're always unable to actually show it. Word salad isn't enough.
Meaningless garbage.
amrit napisal/-a:alex sometime is better to be still.................
than spewing meaningless garbage all over the forum? I agree.
amrit napisal/-a:My work here is done.
Then by all means, leave.
Word salad. It doesn't mean much of anything.
Showing more of your ignorance.
Your evidence for your claim is your claim rewritten into several A4 pages? Obviously the scientific method or even basic logic is beyond you.

To justify your claim you need to do more than just restate your claim. Otherwise you'd have to accept the following :

Proposition : You're an idiot.

Proof : You're an idiot.

In reality though, you're an idiot.
:lol:
Yet things still happened long before you got here, dumbass.
Amrit = run of cholera.
So you keep insisting. Problem is your a clueless nutjob who probably can't tie your own shoes, not to mention dead wrong.
sensation of time is of no value for scienctific research which is why we use non-subjective means to measure it.
What makes you thick, armpit?
armit, I'm sorry, but sometimes we need to take some of our own advice, in your case this advice would be ... wake up.
As is the sensation of the wind blowing through your hair, that doesn't mean the wind does not exist!
Amrit -- the joke is that "What makes us tick" is not about time but the human perception of time and your typo of "What makes us thick" appears as a self-proclamation of abject stupidity, especially to the British idiom. Your repeated errors are symptomatic of someone using cut-and-paste in lieu of the necessary deep understanding which a claim of reading the paper at the professional level would imply.

In your struggles to appear knowledgeable, you merely appear, and this is using your own words here, thick.

No one believes you are capable of reading Nature Reviews Neuroscience when you haven't mastered the citation form which lists when the article was published.
amrit napisal/-a:I work on that subject for 20 years
And Alex Jones worked on Cold Fusion for his entire academic career, he failed. Good thing(for him) that 911 came along so he could sell his scientific cred to the troothers.
amrit napisal/-a:1. sensation of motion happening in linear time is result of neuronal activity of the brain
SENSATION IS NOT THE OBJECT OR FORCE BEING SENSED.
amrit napisal/-a:2. motion runs in timeless space
So you keep insisting, nobody agrees with you.
amrit napisal/-a:3. with clocks we measure duration of motion
4. duration of motion is result of measurement, motion itself has no duration
MEASUREMENT IS NOT THAT BEING MEASURED, nor is that being measure the result of the act of measurement. Time exists and passes whether we are here to measure it or not.

It seems you have wasted the last 20 years of your life, man up and move on.
amrit napisal/-a:I work on that subject for 20 years
What a waste of er.... time. Still, it gave him something to do.
:lol:
amrit napisal/-a:grumpi with you i'll do not discuss the subject as you do not understand it at all
better you do not comment................
Does anyone else see the incredibly funny irony in that statement?

I imagine Amrit never will.
amrit napisal/-a:PS grumpy please keep quite..........
Quite what??? Quite capable of smelling the crap you keep shovelling onto our forum, maybe???
:lol:
amrit napisal/-a:I work on that subject for 20 years, you will see in 5-10 yeas this vision of time will enter main stream, see more on
But in those 20 years you've not been published anywhere reputable, you haven't learnt a single bit of science, you know nothing of mainstream physics, you can't do any of even the basic mathematics of science and yet you believe it'll all magically turn around in the next few years, just like Sylwester does. You (and he) have failed miserably and yet you continue to try to push your nonsense.
armpit napisal/-a:13. Catalin V. Buhusi, Warren H. Meck, What makes us thick?, Functional and neural mechanisms of interval timing, Nature reviews, Volume 6, October 2005
Yep, what makes you so "thick", armpit?
amrit napisal/-a:see references
all confirm that time is clocks run in timeless space..........
No, some, perhaps all, put forth that hypothesis. They do not 'confirm' it. And simply quoting Einstein doesn't make you right, he was wrong about a lot of things. And you didn't actually retort my point, that after 20 years you know no science, have nothing reputable published and you're reduced to posting your 'work' on forums, not in journals.
amrit napisal/-a:6. time, means clock run is man invention
Again, grammar is atrocious. I can't even figure out what that means.
Fun Internet Fact of the Day:

On the internet, typing in all-caps is equivalent to yelling, so don't do it.
(hint: people will think you're stupid if you combine all-caps with bad grammar)

If you want to be taken seriously, change your profile signature, etc to reflect conversational grammar. i.e. Read it back to yourself, and see if it makes sense. You can also use a friend to help!
Alice knows! Who ate the mushroom that had the clock in it?

Pardon. Amrit is is dire need of language lessons, much less physics.
amrit napisal/-a:I'm getting boring
No, you've been boring from the very start(not to mention wrong), we've been bored by you for some time now.
amrit napisal/-a:im getting tired explain that again and again
You aren't explaining anything, you just mindlessly repeat the same things again and again. Your 'papers' are just the same, rewording one another and being too short to actually be of any use. You shouldn't be trying to write physics, your 'ideas' are closer to philosophy, as your work has zero impact on how physics is actually done.

Besides, if you are tired of saying it and we are tired of listening to it SHUT UP. Then everyone is happy!
I'm glad to see that you can write coherent English on your "research" paper, but that doesn't hide the vacuous content.
amrit napisal/-a:grumpy all runs slower on the earth than on the moon
your mind too......................
Wait, you're a Mooninite? This explains everything.
I'm glad to see that you can write coherent English on your "research" paper, but that doesn't hide the vacuous content.


He isn't, someone else is doing it for him. He just pays the other idiots and let him put his name on the garbage they write.
amrit napisal/-a:you tell me whAT IS TIME...............IN 5 SENTENCES

I WILL DESTROY YOU IN 1 SENTENCE

NOT WITH INSULTING, BY INTELLIGENCE
Are you some kind of intelligence form of anti-matter? When you come in contact with intelligence you destroy both it and yourself?
:lol:
So everyone in the field of physics is wrong, and you're right.

A classic nutcase.
amrit napisal/-a:so it is.........
Nope, still wrong.
amrit napisal/-a:1. physical events do not run in time but in space only
wrong
amrit napisal/-a:2. we experience physical events run in mind time
wrong.
amrit napisal/-a:3. events have no duration on its own
wrong.
amrit napisal/-a:4. we give them duration by measuring them
wrong.

Does that help?
ter dulcis in fundo:
Amrit Sorli is a crank. Are you Amrit?
Amrit, you one line fuckwit!
Amshit,

Please spare us all the criminally stupid uba-regurgitative codswallop and steep your head in a bucket of fetid herring excrement where it belongs.
:lol:
Amrit Sorli is a crackpot (and so are you, since you ARE Amrit Sorli).
amrit sorli, self-promoting crackpot
It's an unfathomable mystery why Amrit posts on science based sites?

Much like a blind man posing as a photographer, or a quadriplegic attempting to perform a juggling act.

Odgovori

Kdo je na strani

Po forumu brska: 0 registriranih uporabnikov in 9 gostov