# Maths to explain time.

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK don't believe

was that " I don't believe"?. here is an excerpt from the shell theorem.

A corollary is that inside a solid sphere of constant density, the gravitational force varies linearly with distance from the centre, becoming zero by symmetry at the centre of mass. This can be seen as follows: take a point within such a sphere, at a distance {\displaystyle r}
from the centre of the sphere. Then you can ignore all the shells of greater radius, according to the shell theorem. So, the remaining mass {\displaystyle m}
is proportional to {\displaystyle r^{3}}
, and the gravitational force exerted on it is proportional to {\displaystyle m/r^{2}}
, so to {\displaystyle r^{3}/r^{2}=r}
, so is linear in {\displaystyle r}
.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...5YlYqbtLlu_ijoeV39oq0bQnJEnT6eWi93D98IznZdVbs

gravity goes down all the way, can remain constant above extreme dense masses, but will not go up, only down gentler. Reason being that the interior denser mass, like the core, is already a contributor to the total gravity. stripping the layers above it, will not increase the central mass. Only the enclosed mass generates gravity,
gravity goes down, time goes up.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?
Of course pressure, energy also generates gravity, but it takes a lot of it. still, zero at the center, even in a black hole.
time wihtout formulae.

Last edited:
The expression is self explanatory really,

Δ=change
t=time
f=frequency
S=entropy
E=energy

It basically says that each change is exactly equal to all the other changes, one action that creates all these changes.

Thanks for trying to explain but I also don't do Spanish

Thanks for trying to explain but I also don't do Spanish

No problem, you may understand it if you understand the logic behind it.

A formal system or logical calculus is any well-defined system of abstract thought based on the model of mathematics. A formal system need not be mathematical as such

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system

In logic, syntax is anything having to do with formal languages or formal systems without regard to any interpretation or meaning given to them. Syntax is concerned with the rules used for constructing, or transforming the symbols and words of a language,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax_(logic)

In logic, a rule of inference, inference rule or transformation rule is a logical form consisting of a function which takes premises, analyzes their syntax, and returns a conclusion (or conclusions).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_inference

So I have literally represented the process with symbols. There is no end result such as a number. It explains a process.

Klingon I also do not do said Yoda

Think of it this way, to consider time dilation as only the frequency and time changing would be incomplete. To consider why the dilation occurs would be complete, so if we track back the action involved

a change in time is equal to the change in frequency

So then ask yourself what process is before a change in frequency?

I then speculate the change in the frequency is because something inside the Caesium is changing, hence we can now involve a change in entropy

I then ask myself what can possible change an entropy?

A different energy level can change an entropy

Hence my maths expression to explain the process.

ΔE=ΔS=Δf=Δt

A change in energy (E) of an entropy (S) will result in a change of (S) which will result in a change in output frequency (f) which concludes a change in time (t) .

Of course this is only an opinion and not any sort of fact that as been confirmed.

Stating that time changes does not require units and stating that time changes equal to a frequency that changes also does not need units. It simply explains the actions , the units are irrelevant. So why do you say it is stupid?
Because saying 4=1/4 is stupid.

Very stupid indeed.

And what you are saying with these nonsensical expressions is exactly as stupid.

As I have explained.

But you do not - will not - understand maths, so there is no point in me wasting my time on this.

You are a certifiable - and possibly certified - idiot, Theorist.

Because saying 4=1/4 is stupid.

Very stupid indeed.

And what you are saying with these nonsensical expressions is exactly as stupid.

As I have explained.

But you do not - will not - understand maths, so there is no point in me wasting my time on this.

You are a certifiable - and possibly certified - idiot, Theorist.
I do not see anywhere that I say 4=1/4 and why are you ignoring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system

I think I have just worked out what you mean by 4=1/4 , no, 4=1

A=B=C=D=1

1 being the abstraction . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction

I think I have worked out why you cannot understand my ''math''.

Simplification and ordering
Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective communication about things in the abstract requires an intuitive or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient. This is true for all verbal/abstract communication.

Last edited:
amber said:
Δt=Δf=ΔS=ΔE
There is a rather large problem with this "equation".
In physics, an equation must have equal units either side of an "=" sign, and your one just doesn't. That means it isn't an equation.
It says seconds are equal to cycles per second, equal to a number, which is equal to Newton metres. And that simply isn't true in the real world. Sorry but it's just wrong.

There is a rather large problem with this "equation".
In physics, an equation must have equal units either side of an "=" sign, and your one just doesn't. That means it isn't an equation.
It says seconds are equal to cycles per second, equal to a number, which is equal to Newton metres. And that simply isn't true in the real world. Sorry but it's just wrong.
That is not what it says

In mathematics
Main article: Abstraction (mathematics)
Abstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying essence of a mathematical concept, removing any dependence on real world objects with which it might originally have been connected, and generalizing it so that it has wider applications or matching among other abstract descriptions of equivalent phenomena.

The advantages of abstraction in mathematics are:

• It reveals deep connections between different areas of mathematics
• Known results in one area can suggest conjectures in a related area
• Techniques and methods from one area can be applied to prove results in a related area
Simplification and ordering
Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective communication about things in the abstract requires an intuitive or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient.

You are not simplifying things, you are over thinking the content I provided , to discuss in simple terms of math at my level of comprehension.

You are adding the content of cycles per second etc, which is not required in my abstraction discussion.

amber said:
You are adding the content of cycles per second etc, which is not required in my abstraction discussion.
However, it is required if you're doing physics and describing the real world.
If an abstraction doesn't describe the real world, is it useful?

Your abstraction is saying (for one) that time and energy are equivalent, equivalent how? In what universe?

However, it is required if you're doing physics and describing the real world.
If an abstraction doesn't describe the real world, is it useful?
The advantages of abstraction in mathematics are:

• It reveals deep connections between different areas of mathematics
• Known results in one area can suggest conjectures in a related area
• Techniques and methods from one area can be applied to prove results in a related area
The main disadvantage of abstraction is that highly abstract concepts are more difficult to learn, and require a degree of mathematical maturity and experience before they can be assimilated.

Yes it is useful.

amber said:
Yes it is useful.
Mathematical abstraction is not the same thing as abstracting physical quantities, or physical units.

Besides, you can't say a sphere is equal to a cylinder, or a number, or a graph, because a sphere is a sphere.

Mathematical abstraction is not the same thing as abstracting physical quantities, or physical units.

Besides, you can't say a sphere is equal to a cylinder, or a number, or a graph, because a sphere is a sphere.
But you could say a sphere is equal to a volume of space. You could say the affect is equal to the cause. I am using the math abstraction to consider the physical properties of the Caesium atom.

If an abstraction doesn't describe the real world, is it useful?

Your abstraction is saying (for one) that time and energy are equivalent, equivalent how? In what universe?

My abstraction describes the physical process of the Caesium atom, it is solely abstracted for this process. It does describe the real world and the events involved the Caesium cycle.

My abstraction does not say time and energy are equivalent. It says a process order of events.

Event A - the amount of energy entering the Caesium/within the Caesium changes

Event B- A change in state of entropy

Event C-output frequency change

Event D - a dilation of time

A=B=C=D

Event B being a consequence of event A, an equal and proportional consequence .

A=B

Maybe you will understand it this way ?

B=C

C is a consequence of B and equal and proportional to B.

amber said:
If you mean that to be an abstraction of a process, then what you're doing is abusing notation; most people understand "=" to mean "equals" or "is equivalent to". If you want to redefine well-understood notation you should say that's what you're doing.

On the other hand, you could use notation like A => B => C => D, although "=>" usually stands for material implication, in formal logic. You could also use "->" which can mean "goes to", depending on the context. Using "=" will get you into trouble with logicians and mathematicians, not to mention physicists.

If you mean that to be an abstraction of a process, then what you're doing is abusing notation; most people understand "=" to mean "equals" or "is equivalent to". If you want to redefine well-understood notation you should say that's what you're doing.

On the other hand, you could use notation like A => B => C => D, although "=>" usually stands for material implication, in formal logic. You could also use "->" which can mean "goes to", depending on the context. Using "=" will get you into trouble with logicians and mathematicians, not to mention physicists.
I understand that the equal to sign will confuse some people,. The difficulty of understanding an abstraction is down to interpetation, but in this abstraction equal to is exactly what it is meant to be. You say use the >, you have just used abstraction but I could say you were saying greater than because of the ambiguity of use.
My abstraction is really simple , other examples would be

X=Y=Z

A=B=C

1=1=1

R³=xyz

[000]=[000]

[000]+[000]=0

I have loads of these, but you more than likely would not understand any of them.

amber said:
I have loads of these, but you more than likely would not understand any of them.
If you were studying at a university, do you think you would get good marks if you used your personal abstraction of what notation means in assignments or exams?

Rather than standard meanings, I mean . . .?

If you were writing programs in some language that let you redefine symbols like "=" and ">", would anyone else understand your coding? Would it matter to anyone except you?

If you were studying at a university, do you think you would get good marks if you used your personal abstraction of what notation means in assignments or exams?

Rather than standard meanings, I mean . . .?

If you were writing programs in some language that let you redefine symbols like "=" and ">", would anyone else understand your coding? Would it matter to anyone except you?
What if I took a degree in abstraction maths and abstraction thinking?

Would I not have an advantage because I can already do the abstraction on more or less any physics subject?

Maybe my math is new invention of math designed to communicate process with simplicity , without the ambiguity of words?

I think I have just worked out what you mean by 4=1/4 , no, 4=1
You have made my point for me, Theorist. If 4=1/4, 16=1.

You have made my point for me, Theorist. If 4=1/4, 16=1.
I have no idea of what you are on about. Are you winding me up because I am a women?

I have no idea of what you are on about. Are you winding me up because I am a women?
More than one, eh?

Status
Not open for further replies.