# Maths to explain time.

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by amber, Feb 1, 2018.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### amberRegistered Member

Messages:
323
In Physics , time is it's measurement , so mathematically can we define

Δt=

This would define the frequency of time Δt=c

This would also state that time is dependent to decay and that space-time was absolute.

Last edited: Feb 1, 2018

Messages:
19,252
No.

5. ### amberRegistered Member

Messages:
323
OK, then I ask for your explanation why you say no. My maths explanation allows for time dilation and the twin paradox.

7. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,252
Because all you've done is post an equation without defining the terms or explaining how they're derived (or applied).
Oh, and time is not "dependent to [sic] decay" nor does your claim that "space-time is absolute" follow from that equation.

8. ### amberRegistered Member

Messages:
323
My apologies, I assumed you would know what the symbols meant and could see how it is derived.

index:

Δ=change
t=time
hf=high frequency photon
S=entropy
c=the speed of light

I derived this from considering time dilation and why the frequency of the Caesium atom changes when the Caesium is in motion. I derived that a change in frequency was a change in the Caesium's state of entropy.

9. ### amberRegistered Member

Messages:
323
I also considered time as discrete wave packets

and as an absolute continuous variable where Δx→0.

I also considered ageing and that objects age but space apparently does not age, so considered objects do not age the same as space and came up with Δt≠k(t ) where k is a volume of space. More simply t≠t'

Hence my conclusion Δt=

≠ Δt'(k) and that relative time t exists relative to an absolute time t'.

Last edited: Feb 1, 2018
10. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,252
Why would I know, since you've obviously pulled the "definitions" out your a**.

Means nothing.

More unscientific drivel.

11. ### amberRegistered Member

Messages:
323
You quite clearly do not want to discuss, you know very well what the symbols represent. They are all present math use symbols.

However I will not just ignore you, you can now explain yourself and explain why as you say it is rubbish, give your reasons and just saying so does not count.

are u saying the triangle does not mean change?

Meaning:

change / difference

Example:

t = t1 - t0

https://www.rapidtables.com/math/symbols/Basic_Math_Symbols.html

P.s I think I understand, you think I have made up this equation and I do not understand it?

I assure you I understand the full function of my own equation and what it represents.

Last edited: Feb 1, 2018
12. ### amberRegistered Member

Messages:
323
ΔS=Δhf A system changes in state by the change of hf in the system at any given time at c?

To anyone who may not know this subject

hf = The energy carried by any photon is given by plancks constant (h) multiplied by its frequency (f)
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

ΔΩ=Δhf??

Last edited: Feb 1, 2018
13. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,252
Really?
Please quote me a source that states "hf = high frequency photon".
Likewise explain how the UNITS of hf (kg.m[sup]2[/sup]/s[sup]2[/sup])/S (kg m2 s−2 K−1) = t (seconds). (I.e. dimensional analysis shows you to be wrong - the unit of the result turns out to be K[sup]-1[/sup] not s). Joules/ Joules per Kelvin does NOT = seconds.

And yet we're supposed to just take your word for it without explanation?

No, you don't.

Exactly: hf is NOT a "high frequency photon".

14. ### amberRegistered Member

Messages:
323
huh? The energy carried by a photon is defined hf , so it is a hf photon . Please do not turn the discussion into a discussion about definitions.
When a photon is absorbed by an entropy the hf is divided by the entropy of the system.

15. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,252
No.
hf is the energy (it can apply to electrons, photons...). Merely saying "it's a photon" does nothing.

16. ### amberRegistered Member

Messages:
323
Then I will change my wording just to satisfy your misunderstanding of the content.

hf=high frequency

This does not alter the equation in anyway.

ΔS=Δhf

Δt=ΔS

17. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,897
True. It's still gibberish.

18. ### amberRegistered Member

Messages:
323
Hows is it gibberish? Please explain, it looks correct to me.

19. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,252
Wrong - it's nothing to do with "my misunderstanding" it's about your sloppy (or ignorant) definition.

Still wrong. Go back and read my posts that state what hf is.

That's right, it doesn't alter the fact the equation is made up bullsh*t and is wrong.

20. ### amberRegistered Member

Messages:
323
Made up and wrong ? yet I am using scientific symbols of present use, I am still waiting for you to explain why it is wrong .

Are you really trying to say that these symbols I am using from the internet and good sources are gibberish and meaningless?

21. ### amberRegistered Member

Messages:
323
OK , try it this way because it is what I mean

ΔS=ΔE

Δt=ΔS

Saying hf divided by a entropy is the same as saying energy divided by an entropy in my opinion.

=ΔT where T in this is temperature?

P.s Thank you for your help and helping me correct my notion to be more accurate and conforming to your standards. I have got to put hf because the software will not let me put a E or pE (c).

I believe my notion gives time a physicality in an absolute space. Objects age and time is real for the object, space does not age and is not an object, things age in space relative to space.

Last edited: Feb 1, 2018
22. ### amberRegistered Member

Messages:
323
This could also define time to be a quantifiable measurement directly proportional to ageing. This definition would also show the true genius behind Einstein and show how his work was such brilliance.

23. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,897
Well, because "high-frequency" is an adjective. It's not a variable, and it's not a unit for anything - it's not even a noun.

You are talking about things of which you know nothing, just to get a reaction.

That's trolling.