Does infinity exist?

As for time, time is an invention. Clock says tic tac for a reason, to organise humans and to create order among them. That doesn't make it less of an invention. Yes the clock is an invention and could theoretically be redefined to something else, if the powers allow that.

Let's say you live on Mars, then time deduced to the solar calendear and defined in agreement of suns appearance on the sky on Mars, would look sligthly diffrent then time here on earth. Even a second of the cesium atom electron cycles would be defined diffrently from what it is today on earth.

Without a clock i would say you live in infinity. Forget all you been taught in school, forget about the clock and forget what you been taught of seconds, minuites and hours and you will live a life without a determined schedual. you will be able to redefine a day to a thousands years and a thousand years as one day, since clock is an invention deduced to earthly cycles. Thus it will be possible to redefine time if you are creative enough.

Lillen said:

As for time, time is an invention. Clock says tic tac for a reason, to organise humans and to create order among them. That doesn't make it less of an invention. Yes the clock is an invention and could theoretically be redefined to something else, if the powers allow that.

Click to expand...

Nonetheless, the ticks are regular. Why do the ticks occur once a second, if time is an invention? Time must exist in order for those ticks to be seperated, no?

Lillen said:

in economics we write up and down the value of the currency and after the actionthe currency is per definition worth more or less. It is a fact. Couldn't we write down the age of the universe and decrease the distances of stars and so on to make universe a more pleasant place to travell in?

Honestly I go for lion king, it is holes in the sheet up there...

Click to expand...

I honestly hope you're joking...

Wiccan_Child said:

...Time must exist in order for those ticks to be seperated, no?

Click to expand...

"Le temps est ce qui empêche que tout soit donné tout d'un coup" (Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once) -- Berlioz

Why do the ticks occur once a second, if time is an invention? Time must exist in order for those ticks to be seperated, no?

Click to expand...

Because it is defined to tick once a second. If we twist and turn on it, a second on mars would be twice as long then on earth if defined in same manners (solar calendear) on both places. On mars, you would actually need to redefine a year to the dubble still using the same defintion of the solar calendear (the planets travelling around the sun).

Lillen said:

Because it is defined to tick once a second. If we twist and turn on it, a second on mars would be twice as long then on earth if defined in same manners (solar calendear) on both places.

Click to expand...

Since 1967, the second has been defined in terms of atomic clocks. A second is the time taken for radiation from a caesium atom to oscillate 9,192,631,770 times. That applies to Mars as well.

I was taught all this in the padded cell, were i couldn't keep track of hours and days. Not being able to orientated in time and space can actually be quite intressting, stimulating to some point.

I adressed that in a former post. From Martian perspective, we would need clocks with the defintion cesium radiation intervals to fit in to Mars time. It would be redefined since in this scenario martians has no clue of whats going on another planet such as tellus.

(I argue from the assumption that we live on mars)

I'm dropping out of this thread. The conversation makes no sense at all.

As a musician I been taught that you can alter the pulse of the music, to drop from 120 bpm to 90 bmp... Still being able to play music pleasant to listen to...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dPS-EHl-FE

Michael Nyman are doing this in this song. It doesn't keep a stright pulse like it does in popular rock/pop music..

If we would be martians, we would define atomic clock (remeber it needs something to calibrate with such as the solar calendear) in agreement with the astronomical circumstances on mars.

UNLESS we take the costum were we go...

Lillen said:

Because it is defined to tick once a second. If we twist and turn on it, a second on mars would be twice as long then on earth if defined in same manners (solar calendear) on both places. On mars, you would actually need to redefine a year to the dubble still using the same defintion of the solar calendear (the planets travelling around the sun).

Click to expand...

Regardless, a 'second' is still a set length of time. We arbitrarily define a 'second' to be "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom". We can arbitrarily choose how we measure time, but time itself is absolute.

It's like measuring a stretch of road in miles or kilometres. Both are valid units of measure, and both give different numbers, but the stretch of road itself doesn't change. It's just our measuring that changes, not the road itself.

Because it is defined to be a set of time. It's determined that way. We devide the day into 24 hours, and one hour to 60 minuites and one minuite to 60 seconds because it is simply said that that is the way it shall be.

It is the same thing with math. it is determined you operate by doing the samething on both sides of the equal sign, there are other methods of operating such as moving a term from one side of the equalsign to another and changing the addition sign to a substraction sign, a multiplication sign to a division sign and vice versa.

In contrast to what the book says I would say that it is possible to operate diffrently with another outcome of the equations. such as moving factor per factor over the equal sign and changing the signs. But since i am not respected mathematician I will find alot of resistance of this in the scientifical community.

For the stretch of the road, I would use the symbolism of a rubber band instead - the more you increase the value of force the longer the rubberband will be.

If someone find another perception of time then what is used, he would not only show some awesome cool creativity inside of his brain. He would also add something to the scientifical community...

The tricks you can do by redefining decreed facts is visible in architecture. In russia houses look big on the outside, but you are exposed to claustrophobia when entering a building. A similar phenomenon can be observed in some communions, The house look small on the outside but when you enter it it looks like it is a castle. A trick, caused by the power of the pen.

We arbitrarily define a 'second' to be "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom". We can arbitrarily choose how we measure time, but time itself is absolute.

Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WElvEZj0Ltw

I would agree with you, I do!! But one thing does not exclude other, time can be percived as non existant, as there is only 'now'... you will have this perception of time, when you have no other plans for tomorrow.

Lillen said:

Because it is defined to be a set of time. It's determined that way. We devide the day into 24 hours, and one hour to 60 minuites and one minuite to 60 seconds because it is simply said that that is the way it shall be.

Click to expand...

Yes, but how we divide up a length of time doesn't change the fact that there is a length of time at all.

Lillen said:

It is the same thing with math. it is determined you operate by doing the samething on both sides of the equal sign, there are other methods of operating such as moving a term from one side of the equalsign to another and changing the addition sign to a substraction sign, a multiplication sign to a division sign and vice versa.

In contrast to what the book says I would say that it is possible to operate diffrently with another outcome of the equations. such as moving factor per factor over the equal sign and changing the signs. But since i am not respected mathematician I will find alot of resistance of this in the scientifical community.

Click to expand...

Mathematicians have the good fortune to work in the world of absolute proof. Not only will they resist your ideas, they'll be able to fundamentally disprove them. You are wrong to believe that the rules of mathematics are arbitrary. You are wrong to believe that the whole "do what you want to an equation so long as you do it to both sides" idea is arbitrarily promoted.

Lillen said:

For the stretch of the road, I would use the symbolism of a rubber band instead - the more you increase the value of force the longer the rubberband will be.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant - what about the stretch of road? Do you agree that our choice of measurement is irrelevant?

Lillen said:

If someone find another perception of time then what is used, he would not only show some awesome cool creativity inside of his brain. He would also add something to the scientifical community...

Click to expand...

I disagree. Length and measurement aren't arbitrarily decided upon. The speed of light is 3x10[sup]8[/sup] m s[sup]-1[/sup] because that is how many metres light travels in a second. This is objective, not subjective. We can change the definition of the 'metre' and the 'second', but the physical velocity of light does not change.

Well look this way: Lets redefine time from atomclock to an apple clock, were one second is defined as the time for an apple to hit the ground from a tree.

Mathematicians have the good fortune to work in the world of absolute proof. Not only will they resist your ideas, they'll be able to fundamentally disprove them. You are wrong to believe that the rules of mathematics are arbitrary. You are wrong to believe that the whole "do what you want to an equation so long as you do it to both sides" idea is arbitrarily promoted.

Click to expand...

Like I said I will find resistance.

You are wrong to believe that the rules of mathematics are arbitrary. You are wrong to believe that the whole "do what you want to an equation so long as you do it to both sides" idea is arbitrarily promoted.

Click to expand...

What i arbitararily?

There are two ways to operate when solving a equation, this is actually one of the criteria for getting a good grade, be able to solve the equation using diffrent technuiqes. One is removing everything that isn't x from one side to the other of the equal sign, and change the sign to it's opposite (plus become minus and minus becomes plus). And the second way is that you can get the x loosed by operating equally on both sides of the equal sign.

Now, chosing a way to operate or use a foregin techniuqe of solving equation, can actually be quite creative (one again i do not know what arbiturary means). And i am able to prove it too.

For example:

x^2*2x+7=5y

Let's use the techniuqe moving factor for factor or parhaps number per number instead of term for term.

x^2*2x=5x-7
x^2=(5x-7)/2x
x= Squareroot all the term (5x-7)/2x

It is a foregin way to operate this function, making the solution look quite diffrent from using the standard techniques of solving the equation. As I mentioned, I will find resistance from using this foreign technique since it is not accepted by the mathematical community. But then again, I did explain what I did, how i operated, I was in fact aware of what I was doing. And that is the second criteria for getting a good grade - to know what you have done.

Now for those who wish to be picky and say that I operated wrong or used an invalid technique with purpose. I know what I have done. And I am aware that it gives another answer then using the orthodox techniques of solving an equation. But atleast I know that the answers would be diffrently from eachother using a foregin way to solve the equation. Since I knew what I was doing, all i need to do is convince others that my way of solving equations is a better way. Otherwise it will be rejected.

Lillen said:

Well look this way: Lets redefine time from atomclock to an apple clock, were one second is defined as the time for an apple to hit the ground from a tree

Click to expand...

Then the unit's definition is nebulous and variable, depending on which apple you use. Regardless, no matter how long it takes for a given apple to hit the ground, it still takes time, no?

Lillen said:

What i arbitararily?

Click to expand...

I think the word translates to 'godtycklig' in Swedish. 'Arbitrary' means 'without reason'. In this context, when I say the rules of mathematics aren't arbitrarily chosen, I mean we didn't pluck them out of thin air, we didn't create them without reason. In other words, there is a reason that the rules are there.

Lillen said:

There are two ways to operate when solving a equation, this is actually one of the criteria for getting a good grade, be able to solve the equation using diffrent technuiqes. One is removing everything that isn't x from one side to the other of the equal sign, and change the sign to it's opposite (plus become minus and minus becomes plus). And you can get the x loosed by operating equally on both sides of the equal sign.

Click to expand...

That is a simplistic technique taught to schoolboys. The reason we can do that is based on what it means to say "this equals that". It's not arbitrary; the whole point is that, given the truth of the first equation, we can confidently assert the truth of the last.

Lillen said:

Now, chosing a way to operate or use a foregin techniuqe of solving equation, can actually be quite creative (one again i do not know what arbiturary means). And i am able to prove it too.

For example:

x^2*2x+7=5y

Let's use the techniuqe moving factor for factor instead of term for term.

x^2*2x=5x-7
x^2=(5x-7)/2x
x= Squareroot all the term (5x-7)/2x

It is a foregin way to operate this function, making the solution look quite diffrent from using the standard techniques of solving the equation. Then again, I will find resistance from using this foreign technique. But then again, I did explain what I did, how i operated, I was in fact aware of what I was doing. And that is the second criteria for getting a good grade - to know what you have done.

Click to expand...

But... you didn't solve the equation. You have x on one side, but you also have it on the other side. The correct solution is as follows:

x[sup]2[/sup] * 2x - 7 = 5y

2x multiplied by x[sup]2[/sup] is simply 2x[sup]3[/sup], so we have:

2x[sup]3[/sup] - 7 = 5y
2x[sup]3[/sup] = 5y + 7
x[sup]3[/sup] = (5y+7)/2
x = ((5y+7)/2)[sup]1/3[/sup]

This is what x equals, in terms of y (Noting that raising something to the power of 1/3 is the same as taking the cube root).

While there can be many handy techniques to do something - there are famously hundreds of proofs of Pythagoras' theorem - when solving linear equations they must always lead to the same answer.

Take.

3x=1y

Loosen out the x.

The standard way is either to devide both sides of the equal sign with 3
The other way which gives exactly the same answer is to move the 3 to the other side and changing the sign to a devision.

My way to operate is to put -2x on the both sides of the equalsign. Giving the operation 3x=1y
3x-2x=1y-2x
1x=1y-2x

lets define x and y were x is defined as 2 and y is defined as 5. giving the equation the following look.

3*2=1*5

2=5-4

This is the solution using my technique to solve an equation.
But there is a missing link as you can see...

3*2-2*2 = 1*5-2*2

6-4=5-4

What i have done here is redefined the number 5 to a 6 and 2 to a 1 using an unorthodox technique of solveing an equation. But we don't do that because that is just plain silly, we need to go further

To get it stright, i need to move 6 to the other side of the equal sign and changing the operator to a - sign and finally add a -1 to the side without numebers giving the answer 5-6=-1

I chose to operate diffrently and use other techniques other then the standards. Here i had to add a -1 for the equation to turn out right.

But atleast i knew what I was doing. 5-6=-1 is a solution to 3x=1y when the variables are defined in such manners i wished to define it and i add -1. Lets call it for a missing link were you need to imagine a number so hard the equation turns out to be alright!!

3x=1y if we define x as 2 and y as 5, which is fully possible because it is a variables, we will however get an error on the calcualtor, but that is because 5 is not a 6 and 6 is not a 5 unless we become silly. But lets push it further. And define x as 2a:s and y as 5b:s. Since we have defined x and y to other variables the equation turns out to be correct when solving it. Even though using an unorthodox or foreign way to operate the equation...

3*2a=1*5b
6a=5b

6a-2x=5b-2x
6a-4a=5b-4a

Still correct.

Fully possible, without any objections. As we have defined the variables x and y to other variables the solution of the equation turns out alright. Using this unorthodox technique to solve the equation will give those numbers. And i am aware that the answer is diffrently from the orthodox way to solve it. But that doesn't change the fact that my way to operate will give that outcome...

But... you didn't solve the equation

Click to expand...

Sorry simplify at the last post using unorthdox operations.

when solving linear equations they must always lead to the same answer.

Click to expand...

Not when using my way to operate. It is possible to do so, since i am aware that my way to operate gives another outcome. I know that the answer is diffrent using my way to operate. I am aware of that. But that doesn't change the fact that my way to operate gives another outcome.

Daydrifting is my answer to infinity..

I think the word translates to 'godtycklig' in Swedish. 'Arbitrary' means 'without reason'. In this context, when I say the rules of mathematics aren't arbitrarily chosen, I mean we didn't pluck them out of thin air, we didn't create them without reason. In other words, there is a reason that the rules are there.

Click to expand...

Actually we defined them, we said that this is the way we operate, we decreed the diffrent definitions of diffrent operations. It is there only because it is determined by man to be that way.

I have invented an own alphabeth with thirty letters, all representing also a numerical system so that you count thirties, sixties and hundreds. You simply count thirtyone, thirtytwo, thirtythree [...] thirtytwentyeight, thirtytwentynine, sixty. I decreed that my numerical system would be that way, It is that way because I say it shall be that way. It is defined by me to be that way. If i wouldn't invented it, it would not exist. And if i wouldn't have defined it to be that way, it wouldn't.

If we were drawing curves, (20sin x) gives that curve, and (sin 20x) gives another. Only because it is determined that the curves should look that way. But if we make another decree, that it should be the other way around so that 20sin x gives the curve sin 20x would give and vice versa, it would be that way.