# Imagination.

As I have already said, the ideas of "width of time" and "height of time" indicate that "length of time" is a colloquialism. The three spatial dimensions are indistinguishable.
In what respect are they indistinguishable? They all use the same magnitude of measurements? But of course, each of the three spatial dimension have an orientation, a direction of measurement, and each dimension of orientation has measurable properties.

Time also has a very specific measurable temporal orientation, forward from beginning to end of duration.. Therefore the term "length" as a temporal measurement of the beginning and end of a duration is certainly acceptable.

Length itself is a magnitude of increments.

And of course there is a "breadth of time". Another colloquialism?

The thing is that you are using the term Magnitude in a different context.

Order of magnitude
An order of magnitude is an approximation of the logarithm of a value relative to some contextually understood reference value, usually ten, interpreted as the base of the logarithm and the representative of values of magnitude one. Logarithmic distributions are common in nature and considering the order of magnitude of values sampled from such a distribution can be more intuitive.
When the reference value is ten, the order of magnitude can be understood as the number of digits in the base-10 representation of the value. Similarly, if the reference value is one of certain powers of two, the magnitude can be understood as the amount of computer memory needed to store the exact integer value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude

Differences in order of magnitude can be measured on a base-10 logarithmic scale in “decades” (i.e., factors of ten).[1] Examples of numbers of different magnitudes can be found at Orders of magnitude (numbers).

The Exponential Function uses magnitudes of numerical growth.
Here are some more synonyms for your term magnitude

mag·ni·tude, noun
1. 1.
the great size or extent of something.
"they may feel discouraged at the magnitude of the task before them"

Similar: immensity, vastness, hugeness, enormity, enormousness, expanse, size, extent, greatness, largeness
bigness.
Opposite: smallness

As far as I am concerned you are engaging in sophistry.

Can you explain to me the magnitude of 17.84 hrs. I kid you not. I am looking at this now.
It has me stumped.

Hours per month

Code A .............. 17.84
Code B .............. 20.00
Code C .............. 37.32
Code D ............. 69.28
-----------------------------
Total hours ...... ?????

Last edited:
This is all classic Write4U method.

He switches between technical and colloquial meanings of terms all the time and by doing so makes science into gibberish. Just cast your mind back to the utterable twaddle he has produced by doing this with the terms "potential" and "function".
+1 to this.

He also seems to think that if he pulls out Webster's dictionary (or equivalent) in its most concise edition, then it will give him the definitive scientific meaning and usage of any word at all. He doesn't distinguish between general usage and scientific usage, which is why he gets the scientific terminology wrong so often - and also why he refuses to accept that there is any difference.

In what respect are they indistinguishable?
If you have a Cartesian coordinate system, for instance, then its orientation is completely arbitrary. You can point the x, y and z axes in whichever directions your like, as long as they are orthogonal to one another (and, if you want to follow certain scientific conventions, also arranged as a "right-handed" system). There is no absolute "up and down", "left and right", "forwards and backwards".
But of course, each of the three spatial dimension have an orientation, a direction of measurement, and each dimension of orientation has measurable properties.
The orientation of the three spatial dimensions is arbitrary - a free choice.

There's no property that a z axis has that an x or y axis does not have.
Time also has a very specific measurable temporal orientation, forward from beginning to end of duration.
No. Time is not a vector quantity. It does not "point" in a particular direction. It's a scalar - just like spatial coordinates.
Therefore the term "length" as a temporal measurement of the beginning and end of a duration is certainly acceptable.
Yes, in common usage. But scientists don't use that kind of language - at least, not if they want to be precise.
And of course there is a "breadth of time". Another colloquialism?
Yes.
As far as I am concerned you are engaging in sophistry.
True to form for you. See my comment in the previous post. Also, see the comment about learning about the box before you start to criticise it.
Can you explain to me the magnitude of 17.84 hrs. I kid you not. I am looking at this now.
The term "magnitude" in science just means the numerical amount of something, in particular without regard to other features that something might have.

If you have a Cartesian coordinate system, for instance, then its orientation is completely arbitrary. You can point the x, y and z axes in whichever directions your like, as long as they are orthogonal to one another (and, if you want to follow certain scientific conventions, also arranged as a "right-handed" system). There is no absolute "up and down", "left and right", "forwards and backwards".
IOW, they distinguishable.
The orientation of the three spatial dimensions is arbitrary - a free choice.
Yes "arbitrary", another word I am unfamiliar with.
There's no property that a z axis has that an x or y axis does not have. Yes it does, that;s why it is called the z axis, in relation to the x and/or y axes
No. Time is not a vector quantity. It does not "point" in a particular direction. It's a scalar - just like spatial coordinates.
"time's arrow"
1. the direction of travel from past to future in time considered as a physical dimension.
Yes, in common usage. But scientists don't use that kind of language - at least, not if they want to be precise.
Of course they do. Scientists use all kinds of colloquialisms in conversational context.
Am I being graded on a "formal paper" here? Or are we discussing the topic of imagination. How ironic.

I'm so proud that I know what the term colloquialism means. I'm aglow all over.

True to form for you. See my comment in the previous post. Also, see the comment about learning about the box before you start to criticise it.
IMO, any discussion about imagination requires "out of the box" thinking.
The term "magnitude" in science just means the numerical amount of something, in particular without regard to other features that something might have.
I know what magnitude means!
I prefer to use the term "length of time" over the term "magnitude of time", lest I be accused of pretentiousness.
A popular form of critique from the "real" scientists on this forum.

At least no one can accuse me of a lack of imagination. OTOH, I can make that claim about others being locked in their box, no imagination.

Colloquialism
Colloquialism or colloquial language is the linguistic style used for casual (informal) communication. It is the most common functional style of speech, the idiom normally employed in conversation and other informal contexts.[1]
Colloquialism is characterized by wide usage of interjections and other expressive devices; it makes use of non-specialist terminology, and has a rapidly changing lexicon. It can also be distinguished by its usage of formulations with incomplete logical and syntactic ordering.[2][3][4][5]
Explanation
Colloquialism or general parlance is distinct from formal speech or formal writing.[6] It is the form of language that speakers typically use when they are relaxed and not especially self-conscious.[7]
An expression is labeled colloq. for "colloquial" in dictionaries when a different expression is preferred in formal usage, but this does not mean that the colloquial expression is necessarily slang or non-standard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquialism

I like this one;

Definition of for any length of time
: for more than a very small amount of time;
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/for any length of time

Oops, MW is wrong! That should read: for more than a very small magnitude of time
I get sick if I ride in the back seat of a car for any length of time.
Wrong!!!!!
That should read; "I get sick if I ride in the back seat of a car for any magnitude of time."
If you're in town for any length of time, be sure to see the museum.
Wrong!!!!! That should read; "If you're in town for any magnitude of time, be sure to see the museum".

Are you kidding me?

My use of the term "length of time" in context of the thread is NOT wrong.

Last edited:
In what respect are they indistinguishable?
Look at a cube of sugar. Which dimension is the width? Which dimension is the height? Which dimension is the length?
They all use the same magnitude of measurements?
They ought to, to avoid confusion. How would you calculate the volume of a cube that was x inches by y meters by z furlongs?
But of course, each of the three spatial dimension have an orientation, a direction of measurement, and each dimension of orientation has measurable properties.
But it doesn't matter what you call each dimension, as long as they are all orthogonal. A two-by-four is 1 and 1/2 inches "high" lying flat OR 3 and 1/2 inches "high" standing on edge OR 96 inches "high" standing on end.
Time also has a very specific measurable temporal orientation, forward from beginning to end of duration.
The difference is that time is a one-way street. Go down the x-axis 10 miles in a time interval of 10 minutes. The change in x, dx, is 10 miles. The change in time, dt, is 10 minutes. Now go backwards to x=0. The total distance traveled is dx + (-dx) = 0. But the total time interval is 20 minutes.
Therefore the term "length" as a temporal measurement of the beginning and end of a duration is certainly acceptable.
But not precise enough.
And of course there is a "breadth of time". Another colloquialism?
Definitely colloquial.
Can you explain to me the magnitude of 17.84 hrs.
It's half of 35.68 hours. Or twice 8.92 hours. The hours are a standard number of seconds and the seconds are a standard (arbitrary) length.
I am looking at this now.
It has me stumped.

Hours per month

Code A .............. 17.84
Code B .............. 20.00
Code C .............. 37.32
Code D ............. 69.28
-----------------------------
Total hours ...... ?????

Look at a cube of sugar. Which dimension is the width? Which dimension is the height? Which dimension is the length?
Listen.
I am not disputing that magnitude is the formal term associated with time.

You are disputing that length of time is an acceptable term associated with time when in a casual conversation.
I have demonstrated that in many different ways now. I will not change my original statement, regardless if want to stomp your foot on the ground.
Try and use your precious magnitudes of time in productive conversation, shall we?

Ok. Are we done now ?

Last edited:
Are we done now ?
I made eight statements in my previous post. You quoted one and your response didn't refer to it at all.

So no. We are not done.

My rebuttals stand. You can run away if you choose.

I made eight statements in my previous post. You quoted one and your response didn't refer to it at all.

So no. We are not done.

My rebuttals stand. You can run away if you choose.
You do realize you're completely off topic now, don't you?

I am not running away from this topic. I shall just ignore your off-topic rants. You can keep pissing in the air all you want. Make sure the wind doesn't blow in your face.

You do realize you're completely off topic now, don't you?
I don't think so. The very first sentence in the topic is, "Everything you can imagine exists in reality because your imagination exists in reality." The topic is about imagination and reality.

Reality demands real definitions of words, not your imagined definitions. YOU were the one who started blurring the meaning of words.
I shall just ignore your off-topic rants.
You could have ignored me right from the beginning and saved us a lot of your nonsense.

You could have ignored me right from the beginning and saved us a lot of your nonsense.
You should have left it alone.
I gave you the courtesy of attention, until you used it to tell the world what a dunce I am because I used the term "length of time", which is a perfectly acceptable term. No blurring there.
But that is when you became the troll.

Last edited:
You should have left it alone.
I gave you the courtesy of attention, until you used it to tell the world what a dunce I am because I used the term "length of time", which is a perfectly acceptable term. No blurring there.
But that is when you became the troll.

There is a length of time . Movement measured .

There is a length of time . Movement measured .
Tell that to sideshowbob.

Last edited:
IOW, they distinguishable.
Yes "arbitrary", another word I am unfamiliar with.
Of course they do. Scientists use all kinds of colloquialisms in conversational context.
Am I being graded on a "formal paper" here? Or are we discussing the topic of imagination. How ironic.

I'm so proud that I know what the term colloquialism means. I'm aglow all over.

IMO, any discussion about imagination requires "out of the box" thinking.
I know what magnitude means!
I prefer to use the term "length of time" over the term "magnitude of time", lest I be accused of pretentiousness.
A popular form of critique from the "real" scientists on this forum.

At least no one can accuse me of a lack of imagination. OTOH, I can make that claim about others being locked in their box, no imagination.

Colloquialism

Explanation

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

I like this one;

Definition of for any length of time

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/for any length of time

Oops, MW is wrong! That should read: for more than a very small magnitude of time
Wrong!!!!!
That should read; "I get sick if I ride in the back seat of a car for any magnitude of time."

Wrong!!!!! That should read; "If you're in town for any magnitude of time, be sure to see the museum".

Are you kidding me?

My use of the term "length of time" in context of the thread is NOT wrong.
Now this really is a troll post.

Yes "arbitrary", another word I am unfamiliar with.
I would suggest you start with the basic language of science first, before trying to jump into more advanced concepts.

I would suggest you start with the basic language of science first, before trying to jump into more advanced concepts.
I appreciate the suggestion.

But using conversational colloquial language proves a lack of formal scientific language. It does not prove a lack of understanding the basic principles involved.

If I understand the narratives that accompany theories or propositions I am satisfied. I seldom bother with scientific symbols or mathematical formulas. I trust those are accurate when they have been peer-reviewed.

That is why I use colloquialisms used by scientists when engaged in conversational science.
Using colloquialisms does not negate the science.

I recall a famous scientist using the term, "spooky action at a distance". No one took offense at that colloquialism.

Roger Antonsen explains imaginative (not imaginary) perspectives very nicely;

Last edited:
I appreciate the suggestion.

But using conversational colloquial language proves a lack of formal scientific language. It does not prove a lack of understanding the basic principles involved.

If I understand the narratives that accompany theories or propositions I am satisfied. I seldom bother with scientific symbols or mathematical formulas. I trust those are accurate when they are peer-reviewed.

That is why I use colloquialisms used by scientists when engaged in conversational science.
Using colloquialisms does not negate the science.

I recall a famous scientist using the colloquial "spooky action at a distance".
However what he did not do was to mix up non-scientific and scientific usages of a word indiscriminately, which is what you do.

You flip-flop, for instance, in the space of a paragraph, between "function" used in its mathematical sense, f(x), and "function" in its general meaning as the role something performs.

You do the same with "potential" in its sense in mathematical physics (the energy an object will have due its position at a particular point in a field) versus "potential" in its general meaning as a latent capability of some kind.

Your inability to recognise these flip-flops in meaning of the words you use renders much of what you say gibberish.

What makes it far worse is that you stubbornly refuse to admit, ever, that you are mistaken, even in the smallest degree. So that means that correcting the errors resulting from your confusion of meanings becomes impossible.

That makes you worthless as an interlocutor - which is why so much of time you you end up talking just to river, nebel and the latest visiting troll.

Last edited:
What makes it far worse is that you stubbornly refuse to admit, ever, that you are mistaken, even in the smallest degree.
Question: can you make sense of what I am saying, or do I confuse your understanding of what I am saying?
So that means that correcting the errors resulting from your confusion of meanings becomes impossible.
Seldom is there any correction of the content, other than the semantics.

I don't mind being corrected on the science, but as long as I can find the word in credentialed dictionaries and apply it in proper context, even as a colloquialism, I see no reason to hunt for a formal scientific term in my narratives. I do not pretend to write formal scientific papers, just my understanding of the fundamentals. I speak only in a general sense precisely because I am not knowledgeable in the scientific minutia. I am not an academian.

The only time River asked me to speak English is when I used the term "elan vital" which is a scientific term.

Elan vital
… German biologist Hans Driesch (1867–1941)—or élan vital—introduced by the French philosopher Henri Bergson (1859–1941)—was widely accepted and became popular even outside academic circles. Ultimately, however, it fell out of favour, because it proved to have little direct scientific application.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/elan-vital-philosophy

Last edited:
Yes "arbitrary", another word I am unfamiliar with.
Seriously?! And you want to write for us?

How's this for imaginative expression:

thresh·old, noun

Building
1. a strip of wood, metal, or stone forming the bottom of a doorway and crossed in entering a house or room.
("he stood on the threshold of Sheila's bedroom")

And as used by Science Academia:

Physics
2. the magnitude or intensity that must be exceeded for a certain reaction, phenomenon, result, or condition to occur or be manifested.
("nothing happens until the signal passes the threshold")

Now, that's a clever analogy!

Last edited:
Seriously?! And you want to write for us?
I guess you missed the irony if not read in context of my prior posts. I'm sorry it escaped you.