# Constructing Time from an Axiom

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Willem, Apr 30, 2019.

1. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
Note that item 12 has changed due to consistency with Special Relativity.

12.........Define "time interval" = Delta t = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n = 1}^N n(T_Sf - T_Si)]...............…........................….0-11

3. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,875
Thread reported so that it can be put in the correct section. My preference would be the cesspool, but it is not my call.

Messages:
6,549

7. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
The new 12 plus another construction about advancing when encountering a physical space node would be consistent with Special Relativity.

8. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Sure, that's "regular intervals", but they have nothing to do with time or angular momentum.

So the planet earth is partially imaginary? Since it's a sphere (very roughly), and you are claiming spheres are partially imaginary.

No, I don't. I can simply say that time is fundamental, and there's nothing more that needs to be added.

9. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
Forget the angular momentum definition. Item 5 has changed and item 4.1 was added:

4.1...…..Construct "Physical Space" = S_P = CxC/Im C.....................................................................A1, 0

5...……..Let P_T advance by one (rotate relative to S1,2,3) when encountering a space integer coordinate and let the rotation be a quantum rotation. Call this dynamic "Sub-frequency" = T_S.............................................................................................................................…A1, 4, 4.1

No, we were constructing special spheres that still have coordinate axises.

If time was definable with just one axiom (A2: Time exist.) it would not need to depend on anything else, but you can't define Time like that.

10. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
So your argument turned out to be circular (again); glad you're seeing that too, now.

What do you mean by "/Im C"?

I'm getting lost by all the revisions you are doing. Can you post the complete revised argument?

What are spheres without "coordinate axises"? How are you the spheres you are constructing "special"? And how does this address what I said?

Right, but you've failed to produce such an argument up till now.

11. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
The Imaginary Axis.

Here is the complete revised argument:

A1: Complex numbers exists. Call this C.

Index.....Statement...…………………………………………………………………………………….. Reason
0......…...Import all mathematical operations...................................................…......Plato's Forms
1...…...….Construct S = C x C.......................................................................................A1, 0
1.1...…….S is 4 dimensional....................................................................................…...1
2......…...S can transform...……………………………………........................................……...A1, 1, 0
3............Construct two Riemann Spheres in S, call it RS x RS..............................…..A1, 0
4............Isolate the Riemann Circle of S_3, 4 and call it P_T.................................…A1, 0
4.1......…Import all physical terminology...............................................................…..Plato's Forms
4.2...…..Construct "physical space" = S_P = CxC/S_4.......................................…...…A1, 0
5......…..Let P_T advance by one (rotate relative to S_1,2,3) when encountering a space node of integer coordinates and let the rotation be a quantum rotation. Call this dynamic "Sub-frequency" = T_S
........................................................................................................................….............A1, 4, 4.2
7......…..Define "Change in Sub-frequency" by T_Sf - T_Si…………………………………....4
8...........Let S_1,2 be perpendicular to S_3,4.................................................................1
11..........Construct {for all n = 1 to N: n(T_Sf - T_Si)} . Call this "Changes in Sub-frequencies.
..........................................................................................................................................5,7
12.........Define "time interval" = Dt = 1/[(1/N) \sum \limits_{n=1}^N n(T_Sf - T_Si)]
..........................................................................................................................................0-11

12. ### Beer w/StrawTranscendental Ignorance!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
6,549
You still haven't commented on Plato's Forms to my satisfaction.

I'm not special, just interested

13. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
You read wrong my RSxRS has the two coordinate axises projected on them.

They have infinity at the north pole.

Don't know what you are referring to.

14. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
So it's: "Construct "Physical Space" = S_P = CxC The Imaginary Axis"

That's grammatically incorrect. Please rephrase or correct.

I think you forgot to count a couple of axioms here, by the way.

Transform how? Into what? I've asked you this before, and all I got in response was incoherent gibberish. After I pointed that you, you ignored the point, only to repeat yourself here. Please stop being intellectually dishonest.

Erm… What do Plato's Forms have to do with physical terminology? Also, why don't you add the axioms you're importing here to the total count?

Another revision? Where did the "/Im C" go? Was it incorrect (as I suspected) after all?

This is incoherent: you are trying to derive the existence of time, so the words "dynamic" and "frequency" are meaningless. Once again, you are using a circular argument. In fact, it's one that I pointed out earlier in this very thread, which you couldn't address. Please stop being intellectually dishonest.

And again: please demonstrate that this "time interval" you end up with is identifiable with (physical) time. Please stop ignoring important issues raised; that's intellectually dishonest.

15. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
Since I am only using mathematical operators and physical terminology, I don't think it is necessary to include mathematical and physical axioms. These exists apart from anything needing axioms. I don't need the properties of the operators, just the operators themselfs

By any conformal map or the Riemann Sphere.

They are also ideas that fit in this category.

It's an equivalent statement.

Item 5 defines them.

It ticks like a clock for anything moving in space. All objects move in space since there isn't a distinguished static point of space.

Last edited: May 4, 2019
16. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Not really though. Things like equality (as in: the equal sign) are axioms, if I'm not mistaken. For example, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom#Logical_axioms

Erm… You are using the properties of the operators, so yes, you do need those.

That you have specified where?

So they are irrelevant in that step. Why did you mention them then?

Are you sure? The only definition of "/Im C" that you gave turned out to be gibberish.

OK, so the words "dynamic" and "frequency" that you use may have nothing to do with the words "dynamic" and "frequency" as they are used in English and science. Why not pick different words to avoid confusion then?

"Ticks" and "moving" presuppose time. Once again, you are using circular argument. Remember: you are trying to derive time. That means you cannot use anything related to time, because what would be begging the question.

And thus time exists in a fundamental way. Which is the alternative I brought up, but you dismissed. Yet here you are, proving that time is inherent in the system of physics that you are using. So once again, your reasoning fails. (And since we're in the science-section, I get to note that I'm starting to get decent statistical significance on a pattern that I'm seeing.

)

17. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Also, any chance of you responding to my post #34? It's quite intellectually dishonest to just ignore the issues I raised there. (Edit: I'm starting to get statistical significance on TWO patterns, in fact!

)

18. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
So I need more axioms. It will be rewritten.

Where should I specify them?

I use terminology further on in the derivation.

I did pick "Sub-frequency". Replace "Dynamic" with "Non-static".

You omitted a devide by sign. After the following item they are equivalent:

1.1...…...Label S by indices of axises S_1,2,3,4 in order: Re, Im, Re, Im…………………………………………………………………..1

Replace with:

13...…..Delta t advances like a clock and is consistent with Special Relativity...…………………………………………………….12

19. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
That is circular.

I don't have evidence it is just speculation.

Can you prove that?

20. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
What do you mean by "inherent"?

21. ### Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,077
I have given up reading this thread as my 3 neuron brain cannot stand the G forces coming from my impression of the head spinning in The Exorcist

22. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
It is not circular but for a given system you cannot prove which clock gives the correct time without my derivation.

23. ### WillemBannedBanned

Messages:
283
It is not circular but for a given system you cannot prove which clock gives the correct time without my derivation.