Time Is Only Dimension

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 192
#151
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@ebuc
The question is why time does not need to be a part ofany tensors. Time is both a higher resolution of the 360 degree and lowerresolution of the 1 degree. A matrix in time has no zero, it has a base numberused in the completion of one rotation around the radius.
#152
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
Unlike a regular lines Time translated to a straight line cannot be stretched to infinity we only add and subtract timelines that are synchronized end to end in one direction of (X, Y, Z) as a burst of thrust, all at once xys or one at a time x, then y, then z. Physics calls the movement within a condition of multiple forms of energy time travel. The reason is due to the fact we can and do travel back in Time as an observable fact when we move west around a circumference travling time zones to time zone. We can write space as time (X: Y: Z) Or (01:01:01) we don’t because the lines x, y, z are not confined by time. Einstein’s Theory of general relativity depends on Newton’s law of motion and Time is a word for all orbits as energy. Energy = E , is a curve a straight line which bent by E or is a straight line a curve which is unbent by E?    
                            
Topic's author
#153
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,325
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
No numerical 8 in any of the following info I found on Gravity constant G. So my question still stand, why do  Einstiens formula use 8 * pi as found in the vid as 8pi GT uv....  Here time stamp 52:45 for formula with 8 in it 5 in this Sean Carrol vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRudidBcfXk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obviously Einstiens involvement of spacetime is includes Newtons G, in with spacetime metric.  But why the 8?.

Gravity constant is like this  Force = mass * acceleration

mass 1  and mass 2 and r as radius is halfway between center of each mass radius a plus radius 2 = total distance between center of two masses. Here is another way of viewing the r1 and r2 is is G constant is divided{?} by distance to 2nd power { divided  distance ^2 |in with whole formula.  .." F = (G * m1 * m2) / d^2. "..or so I found on another web site.

..." where, F is the gravitational force between bodies, m1 and m2 are the masses of the bodies, r is the distance between the centrers of two bodies, G is the universal gravitational constant.

...The constant proportionality (G) in the above equation is known as the universal gravitation constant. Henry Cavendish experimentally determined the precise value of G. The value of G is found to be **G = 6.673 x 10-11 N m2/kg2**.".... See link below

So this is evaluation by Henry C.  Tho I dont understand the the forumla. I do understand it is not numerical 8. And I found this utube. The gravitational constant as he states it is 6.673 * 10 negative 11th { ^-11 }

#154
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@ebuc
Sorry I forgot to post this....

8Pi is part of the Unit Circle in algebra and is used to calculate a rotation in degrees, earths gravitational constant is 6.673 ^ -11 Newton describes the gravitational constant of the universe as it is derived from a circle in a rotation of travel as time. Earths sun and the earth itself are round and the earth rotates around an axis while in orbits around the sun. When we dive deeper into the algebra parts of finding mass Pi is used in the calculation and the unit circle is used to describe a variable rotationas 8 Pi in a point on a cercunference that has a radius of one.

Knowing the mass of a planet and its radius we can calculate its gravity anywhere in the universe from the center.
Topic's author
#155
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,325
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@John_C_87
8Pi is part of the Unit Circle in algebra and is used to calculate a rotation in degrees, earths gravitational constant is 6.673 ^ -11 Newton describes the gravitational constant of the universe as it is derived from a circle in a rotation of travel as time.
G is as constant irrespective of mass.

Please share valid evidence web site{s} for you answer to my question of why the 8 in Einsteins spacetime formula as found in the Sean Carro'sl vid I posted. LINK
Topic's author
#156
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,325
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@John_C_87
Why 8?
Ok so this below sort of jives with what John is saying about unit circles, and helps a whole lot, but that part when we see the pi is obviously about unit circles.  Here below we begin to touch on why the 8 and it is because of a previous 4 and 2 that gets increased for various reasons in the spacetime metric..

This below is a quote for John Baez the mathematician who's favorite numbers are 5, 8 and 24.

.."Note that this isn't the first time we've had to muck with fundamental
constants by throwing in geometrical factors that involve pi. Planck
screwed up and invented a constant h that was too big by a factor of
2 pi, forcing someone to invent hbar = h / 2 pi. I think the problem
was that Planck was thinking about wavelengths instead of frequencies,
which makes the circumference of the unit circle show up in a lot of
basic formulas.

Similarly, some systems of units in electromagnetism produce yucky
factors of 4 pi in Maxwell's equations - basically because this is
the area of the unit sphere. The modern attitude is that we shouldn't
stick geometrical factors in our fundamental laws of physics; instead,
we should let them appear on their own when we solve problems using
these laws. The **4 pi shows up when you derive the inverse square law
from Maxwell's equations, since the electric field spreads out in a
spherically symmetric way.**

This time, the problem is the irritating factor of 8 pi in Einstein's
equation. Why did we ever screw up and feel the need to put that in
there? The factor of 4 pi in here is again due to the area of the unit
sphere."...

#157
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@ebuc
Please share valid evidence web site{s} for you answer to my question of why the 8 in Einsteins spacetime formula as found in the Sean Carro'sl vid I posted. LINK
I am not sure if I can use the cite it was unsecure, I first read about it out of a book sometime ago and can’t remember the title. I will come across it again, I’m sure, while it is Newton's mathematical gravitational work that is often described with 8 Pi as a position in trigonometry set from work done by Hipparchus. The 8 Pi is a way for Einstein to say he is using mathematics from Newton’s principles of gravity in the theory specifically for the 8Pi describes half of the earth’s obliquity which is said to be from the gravitation of the sun by use of the Unit circle, equator, and prime meridian as a key in some of Newton’s calculations. 

I know this might not be good news to all, the unit circle is key in establishing that time is part of all three components of the (X, Y, Z) matrices and does not belong in any tenors on its own as part of a matrix. What is missing is atrigonometric translation using chords and Pythagoras theorem setting time in that location and showing others how it then can test Pi as ratio. The theory of General and Special Relativity proves that time is described by time zones that are expanded into two directions of the space matrix at all moments as pares of calculation. It is the direction and writing of mathematics in algebra and trigonometry which have made it appear as generally relative and not a law of mathematic relevance.
Topic's author
#158
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,325
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@John_C_87
see post 126 for some clarity
#159
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@ebuc
Post #126 ? About theory?
Newton's notes in French can be translated a little differently on what 8 Pi means.
Topic's author
#160
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,325
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@John_C_87
My bad 156 above. For clarity via John Baez

#161
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@ebuc
Thank you.....
#162
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@ebuc
Thank you.....Try this cite for an explination.

In layman terms it  is like putting Newton's name on the equation of gravity used in the theory.
Topic's author
#163
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,325
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@John_C_87
Better info in the two links Ive posted previously that you may have glanced at and not processed thoroughly enough they are easy to process

I first posted this vid in #148 that you appear to given a glance and I give time stamps significant info to me.

Then next I gave # 153 this for calculating the G force and again, better clarity with someone to guide you.

And last  I gave Jon Baez explanation for  the 8 that is clearer if not more on point for why the 8 --beyond your use of word 8 and unit circles---

Sorry John but you explanations are lacking in clarity, at least for me. The latter being the most significant to my query of 8. John gave good explanation that you seemed to have glossed over.

......" Planck screwed up and invented a constant h that was too big by a factor of 2 pi, forcing someone to invent hbar = h / 2 pi.

Then the 2 is double ini Maxwells equations ergo 4, and then double again as 8 in the space-time  that is inclusive of the G field equations, thanks mostly to Schwarschild and Einstein putting all of the pieces together with some math on his part. You I and other need to review those are find a better one that connects, the 2, 4, and 8 with even more clarity for us non math lay people.


#164
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@ebuc
......" Planck screwed up and invented a constant h that was too big by a factor of 2 pi, forcing someone to invent hbar = h / 2 pi.

8Pi is not an error it was a way Einstein signed that the formula in General Relativity for gravity over as Newton's law of Gravity, Newtons law of gravity is based off the moons orbit around Earth. None of the mathematics of General Relativity are Einstein’s alone. There are many ways we can write General Relativity in mathematics using Algebra, Physics, Trigonometry, and Geometry mathematic formulas and calculations. The fundamental solving or proof of general relativity is however re-writing the formula as a law of mathematics not confirming predictions as presumption through experimentation.
Topic's author
#165
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,325
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@John_C_87
..."8Pi is not an error"...
No one said it is an error. Your either having mental issues or play mind games cause you have nothing better to do.

Maybe some of both. I think you state a lot of bogus generalized stuff of insignificance.
#166
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@ebuc

No one said it is an error. Your either having mental issues or play mind games cause you have nothing better to do.
                                                                                                        (Pi x D = D > C), Time is ( Chrd x 4  = C) Hipparchus first used a chord chart.

   I am the one who said Pi is an error in General Relativity understanding why it sound like I am playing a mind game. I am contradicting myself now saying 8 Pi is not an error the reason for my contradiction is the values of Pi " 8, 4, or 2" are not relevant to the mistake, the error is made visible only by the multiplication process of Pi in algebra (Pi x D = D > C), Time is ( Chrd x 4  =C) . There is no Einstein spacetime for D > C does not equate to spacetime it equals only to infinite space. I demonstrate this with algebra explaining a difference between Pi and Time which both calculate a circles circumference as C, above. It is Pi that must be synchronized by Einstein, but he did not, he simply leaves Pi unsynchronized to time and labels this difference as general relative time, spacetime. Which is everything outside of synchronization as space leave time attached to X, Y, and Z unsynchronized. I am simply not going to cite my own self-published work where I use and show hypotenuse equal to a circle’s circumference with the Pythagorean theorem. Note: The connection between time and space takes place before the tensors it is made at the matrix.

Writing Einstein's theory as mathematical law is a bucketlist thing...It was not a bucket list thing before High school it was anethical choice not to pursue the mathematic endeavor after what I would say now was very prudent advice to self-preservation. Having had liberty.
Topic's author
#167
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,325
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@John_C_87
Sorry John I have no idea what your going on about.  I not a mathemctcian and I dont have to be to know that newtons formula works as G force and that Einsteins space-tiem metric works because it has been proven over and over experiementally.

Ive presented in one or more topic at DArt how Roger Penrose won a nobel prize in 2018 for his 1965 one page paper that proved Einsteins general relativity formula is correct and predicts null geodes incompleteness aka singularities in black holes.

So again unless you can explain yourself better to the layperson { like me } then most of us have no idea what you going on about. My speculation is, it is just mind game on your part that is does not compute with general relativity as Einsteins space-time metric does.

View the links  I post, maybe you will begin to address them specifically and with explanation for us lay people to have any idea what it is you think your going on about
#168
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@ebuc
Sorry John I have noidea what you’re going on about.  I not a mathematician and I don’t haveto be to know that newtons formula works as G force and that Einsteinsspace-time metric works because it has been proven over and over experimentally. 

I’ve presented inone or more topic at DArt how Roger Penrose won a Nobel prize in 2018 for his1965 one page paper that proved Einsteins general relativity formula is correctand predicts null geodes incompleteness aka singularities in black holes. 

The idea of a metric tensor working to some degree or not working at all has very little to do with it existing as fact mathematically. In laymen terms the issue with a theory like General Relativity is not to prove it is true but write it as a mathematical law. It is far more likely people will cause harm to prevent what I have done than confirm what was accomplished. The commitment of money and recourses of time has been very high almost insurmountable made in one direction.

 So again unless youcan explain yourself better to the layperson {like me } then most of us have noidea what you going on about. My speculation is, it is just mind game on yourpart that is does not compute with general relativity as Einsteins space-timemetric does.

 I do not consider you laymen and your theory on the Torus is interesting. First let’s look at a fact about general relativity, and the Twin Paradox which is the age difference taking place between twins when one travels really fast because of Pi and the theory of General Relativity. Yay! Einstein is great. Einstein is good. Any age difference in the paradox is not created by the law of mathematical relativity describing where all relativity is proportional. If one law had been written in Relativity it would not exist.  Stress does age some people faster even when they are twins the issue here is just math.

 No one caresif General Relativity is written as law. People only care that in many cases theory can be proven, and they are distracted by trying to be the one who finds that proof scientifically. It is not possible to do as the theory is not written correctly to ever be proven right it is perpetual theory. In addition, it is not an excuse by any means to terrorize any group of people over this finding.It is a math mistake not a crucifixion.

 To see the issue take a circle and roll it across a paper and create the circumference in a straight line just like Pi. Take the one circumference of the circle and divided it into three shorter straight lines, again just like Pi. Place one of the three lines across the circle as though it was the diameter of the circle. The line stretches out past the edge of the circle circumference and into open space. There I have just proven Spacetime exists but what is spacetime? To answer your question, Spacetime is now the chord that does not belong to the circle of time it came from so is no longer time. It is a piece of time.

 Let's write time as (chord x 24 = Time) one rotation around a circle form the number (24 to 24). Where do we get to number 24? Let's do just like Pi and roll acircle out as a straight line then divide the line into 24 sections, each line fitting inside the circumference of the circle without going into Spacetime. Spacetime being and direction of X, Y, and Z outside a circumference already established with the radius of the earth.  These lines now stay inside the circle during all mathematical calculations we make. When we divide each of the 24 by 60 and get more lines, the new lines still stay inside the circumference of the circle. When we divide the 60 by another 60 equal lines want to guesswhat still happens every time? 
Topic's author
#169
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,325
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@John_C_87
When we divide each of the 24 by 60 and get more lines, the new lines still stay inside the circumference of the circle. When we divide the 60 by another 60 equal lines want to guesswhat still happens every time? 

When do you get to the significantly relevant points{s}.  You type much without saying much that is of significance relevance to what Ive been presenting regarding, general relativity formula.

In fact I'm doing most of the leg work. You not so much and when you do it is late in game.  maybe your just short on time.
#170
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@ebuc
When we divide each of the 24 by 60 and get more lines, the new lines still stay inside the circumference of the circle. When we divide the 60 by another 60 equal lines want to guesswhat still happens every time? 
This describes Time as groups of 24 and 60 chords that are the same length as a circles circumference around. The forum states " time is only a dimension" the point is time is a circles circumference. How big is the circumference of the circle it is 24 hours round. How big is the diameter of the circle the line travels from 0815 to 0315 literally if the chord goes outside the circle the clock does not tell time anymore.

I know it is a lot cheaper to prove Einstein's math was wrong then it was proving it right. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars and still can't prove its right. We even give out Nobel prizes and the theory is still theory not law. 

In fact I'm doing most of the leg work. You not so much and when you do it is late in game.  maybe your just short on time.
You are showing work others have done, It's not that much leg work. I'm not arguing with the leg work I am correcting what it brings to the table and showing you how to correct it as well. Synchronized Pi by changing the ratio from 3:1 to 4:1 and Pi is synchronized with Time we do not place time in any tensor. Better yet lets through out Pi and use Time instead.

Topic's author
#171
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,325
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@John_C_87

....time is a circles circumference......

A perfect circle is imaginary aka Meta-space concept and is associated with XY XZ or ZY,  two dimensions only as a circular plane/area or polygon of any number of chord/edges.   You offer us no cosmic logical, common sense critical thinking as to why 24 is more cosmic than 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 etc chords/edges that defined a 2D plane area, as non-perfect circles, just lower frequency of polygon

Clocks are no longer circular.  They are digital now and have relation to a 2D circle plane/area any more.

Once again, a lot of words without much of significant relevance and you certainly offer nothing that invalidates general relativity. And you never will. Hot air is goof for filling balloons to rise into the sky. That is more where you specialty may lead to
Topic's author
#172
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,325
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
..." Although the Lorentz theory of the electron was already complete, Planck did not accept electrons and instead described "the energy flowing across a spherical surface of a certain radius containing the resonator." He assumed the resonators could be described as having energy values limited to multiples of hν. "....


OOOO

/\/\/\/\

(  )(  )(   )(  )

(><)(><)(><)(><) ergo (/\/\/)(/\/\/)  invaginating, spiral surface geodesics of Quantum Space-time tori 

(>*<) i  (>*<) = bilateral consciousness * i  * is the most complex resultant of our physical --sine-wave associated--- physical reality resultant inside the tube of these myriad set of Quantum Space-time Tori. i is Meta-space ego



#173
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@ebuc
A perfect circle is imaginary aka Meta-space concept and is associated with XY XZ or ZY,  two dimensions only as a circular plane/area or polygon of any number of chord/edges.   You offer us no cosmic logical, common sense critical thinking as to why 24 is more cosmic than 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 etc chords/edges that defined a 2D plane area, as non-perfect circles, just lower frequency of polygon
Perfect is questionable, a circle is round and has much to do with an object’s resolution. Any curved line is an unfinished circle so to the point it is true a circle can be imaginary. Meanwhile time was never 2 dimensional, it is directional and contradictive to magnetic force as it is represented on earth spinning. Even if we assume gravity is magnetic as it is shown to be, and somehow not subject to likes of all magnetic force to both repel and attract objects in the universe. You are attempting to argue two things at once Time and Gravity. The earth is not round and oval in three-dimensional space is a bold statement to make. What is frequency if not oscillation a slice of energy that is changing scale as acircle. 

Clocks are no longer circular.  They are digital now and have relation to a 2D circle plane/area any more.
Is it me or was this statement kind of degrading, I just purchased a roundclock. That is one way to destroy evidence and suppress fact did you mean to say time has no relation to a circle circumference anymore? That is wishful thinking. I'm going to give out another inexpensive experiment any of us can do without breaking the bank. Get a beach ball and fill it with air at average room temperature. Press down on the one top of the beachball as it rests on the ground. From the side it looks oval and from the top it looks round. Time is the round side of the beachball but on everything in the Universe that is oval. Cosmological what........

Once again, a lot of words without much of significant relevance and you certainly offer nothing that invalidates general relativity

Without much significant relevance is not saying no significant relevance. I can see the truth in saying experiments which are affordable for almost anyone is of lesser significance than those large budget one’s in which only the select few can perform and say they understand them. Offering absolutely nothing that validates the assembly of some poor mathematics that create an almost connection to mathematical law generally held relative is a compliment to me. Yeah maybe I'm dumb that way. Stop trying to twist the facts of time I told you we do not prove relativity right or wrong it is written as law and not theory. It is that simple. 

Energy approximates Mass and the constant of light squared.

Topic's author
#174
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,325
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@John_C_87
Perfect is questionable,....
Read my lips/text until you can grasp truth and facts. You have little valid argument for much if not most of what your insignificant relevance your going on about.

Once again, a perfect { pure } circle is imaginary aka Meta-space concept and is associated with XY XZ or ZY,  two dimensions only as a circular plane/area or polygon of any number of chord/edges and we find/observe in physical reality

You offer us no cosmic logical, common sense critical thinking as to why 24 is more cosmic than 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 etc  and chords/edges that can define a 2D plane as a  finite area, and reality the non-perfect circles, i.e.  just lower frequency of polygon not a perfect circle { meta-space purity of untainted concept }.


OOOO = polygons that look approximate pure concept of perfect circle

/\/\/\/\ = Euclidean expression of sine-wave

(  )(  ) = incomplete geodesics { because of being texticonic characterization } expressed as bisection of a torus

(><)(><) = invaginations from outer { positive } and inner { negative } surface of Quantum Space-time torus

(><)(><)(><)(><) ergo (/\/\/)(/\/\/) ---ergo observed/quntised-time,  invaginating, spiral surface geodesics of Quantum Space-time tori 

(>*<) i  (>*<) = bilateral consciousness * i  * is the most complex resultant of our physical --sine-wave associated--- physical reality resultant inside the tube of these myriad set of Quantum Space-time Tori. i is Meta-space ego


#175
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@ebuc
Read my lips/text until you can grasp truth and facts. You have little valid argument for much if not most of what your insignificant relevance your going on about.
Can't read your lips is a grap of truth.

I gave three experiments that almost any person can do at home to prove the links you give are seriously flawed about time and Special and Gedneral Realtivity. Have you done one of them? Can that be said for the people who suggest the theory of mathematics called relativity is plausible, or of you backing any of the links you sugest? Time and Pi are the same thing only Pi is less accurate than time.

It doesn't matter how long or how hard you push your ball against just the ground or push the ball against the wall one side will always be oval and the other will be round. Incase you do not know the oval sides represent Negative North Pole and Possitive South Pole. We could be like that big round thing in the day. What is that called again, wait I remember now the sun. The earth could always be like the sun and switch ist polarity.


#176
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
You offer us no cosmic logical, common sense critical thinking as to why 24 is more cosmic than 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 etc  and chords/edges that can define a 2D plane as a  finite area, and reality the non-perfect circles, i.e.  just lower frequency of polygon not a perfect circle { meta-space purity of untainted concept }.

We are all alone here Ebucjust two people looking at time differently. The reason for the number 24 was becauseit was already on a clock as a standard value for Armed Services Time. Um...a cicle describes infinity of a single line in one location as fact. The truth in calling a straight line infinet is that some one has to draw it as fact. Ouch! that's going to be a pain. Hear use a ball so if the presure or vacuum push or pulls it down to turn it into a oval it will still have two infinite side with circles.

Happy Thanksgiving.
By the way, the grown-up pilgrims always told the kids it was called thanksgiving as a celebration of survival of the first winter in the 13 colonies. Most of the passengers on the three ships, however, call it thanksgiving because if they stayed in England they would have rotted in prison and froze to death both hungry and cold that very winter before. The crime in many cases was the choices of religion. Who can't relate to trying to staying out of prison and not freezing to death?    
Topic's author
#177
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,325
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@John_C_87
Time and Pi are the same thing only Pi is less accurate than time.

3 can equal 3 seconds, 3 minutes, 3 hrs, days, weeks 3 months etc is Meta-spatial concepts as units Meta-space quanta { finite quantafied duration/period } of Meta-space time and mostly  of insignificant relevance to a Meta-space perfect circle and Meta-space numbers 60, 24, or whatever and mores so when you have some logical, common sense critical thinking explanation.  You do not.

A circle can be divided into 2 parts, 3 parts, 4 parts etc. 

Observed { quantised } time as occupied space physical reality ---ex digital clock--- is composed of fuzzy electrons  { atom cloud }. See sine-wave associated geometric patterns when you actually want to involve something of more relative significance to your lack of any cosmic explanations.

3.1....etc

3.14....etc.

3.141.....etc

3.1415....etc

3.14159265359...etc is mostly insignificantly irrelevance until you actually offer some cosmic significant relevant explantaions.  You have not and I dont see any such coming from you in the future.

Dividing a circle into 60 parts in of itself is of irrelevant insignificance.  You have not of significant cosmic explanation to offer us. Sorry that you pretend like you do.  Back to some cosmic studies for you. Start with known/observed science, as Ive done, and then read the many posts on such cosmic explanations Ive posted here in many posts over the DArts existence

I.e do your homework.


#178
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@ebuc
A circle can be divided into 2 parts, 3 parts, 4 parts etc. 
A series of circles create a sine wave, digital time is using a tangent line outside the curve not a chord inside the curve. Synchronize your Pi.

I.e do your homework.
I work. I do notwork. You are showing that you can draw an infinite straight line, nothingelse, did you forget?Relativity is a mathematicallaw not a theory. Gravity is a law of motion not a theory of relativity. I didwork at home and at other places.

Dividing a circle into 60 parts in of itself is of irrelevant insignificance
A chord is not a circumferencedivided 60 times. A chord is a line that touches to parts of the circlecircumference. On the inside of the circle. The cosmic explanation is the chordis always inside the circle and the tangent line of Pi goes all the way throughthe circle. It is in the wrong place a tangent cannot take the place of thediameter it is too long. I gave this experiment already it cost about 20dollars U.S.

You do not even give an experiment a every day person might do for $300.00 - $500.00
#179
John_C_87
John_C_87's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
2
5
John_C_87's avatar
John_C_87
0
2
5
-->
@ebuc
Observed { quantised } time as occupied space physical reality ---ex digital clock--- is composed of fuzzy electrons  { atom cloud }. See sine-wave associated geometric patterns when you actually want to involve something of more relative significance to your lack of any cosmic explanations.
So, we agree then all of physics has no reason why Time must be added as part of any tensor anywhere within General relativity if it is part of the space matric. Thank you, that is all you needto say...I can just throw it out.
Topic's author
#180
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,325
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@John_C_87
PLease return John.when when you have some significantly relevant comments regarding Fullers remarks..."time is the only dimension"....or other in similar vein. Good luck with that.