R. Henry Nigl
Sep9-04, 02:58 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Thanks Patrick,\n\nThen, so too, the opposite is true? (ie., \'time\' is equivalent to the scalar\ntraverse of matter/mass). Then in multiple coordinate arrays (x-,y-,z- for\ninstance), can I also calculate scalar \'volume\' as equivalent to \'time\'?\n(Careful here I am begining to use \'time\' as a general concept).\n\nOr can \'volume\' defined as a void by scalar data, (visualize an inflated\nballoon\ncast within a plaster block and the plaster parametrically defines the\nvoid), replace matter/mass?\n\nCan \'light\' replace \'time\' in the above concepts?\n\nRHN\n\n----- Original Message -----\nFrom: "Patrick Powers" <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com>\nNewsgroups: sci.physics.research\nSent: Monday, September 06, 2004 4:47 AM\nSubject: Re: Does Matter/Mass Define Time?\n\n\n>\n>\n> "R. Henry Nigl" <rhnl@exoptica.com> wrote in message\nnews:<200409030003.i83037Sv055779@mailbox 7.ucsd.edu>...\n> > Is the scalar traverse of matter/mass equivalent to time?\n> > All answers welcome.\n> >\n> > R. Henry Nigl\n> >\n> > Thanks Frank.\n> >\n> > eoe@hypernet.com\n>\n> Yes.\n>\n> Consider a clock made in this manner: Have a very long ruler in empty\n> space. Fire a gun in the direction of the ruler. By observing where\n> the bullet is relative to the ruler time may be measured in units of\n> length. We might call this a "standard meter."\n>\n> A standard meter is the interval during which a standard mass to which\n> a standard force has been applied travels a standard distance in the\n> absence of all other forces. (And this is a thought experiment! I know\n> this is impractical.)\n>\n> Then in all physics, units of seconds may be replaced with such\n> standard meters. Since this is merely a change of unit, all the\n> mathematics remains valid.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Thanks Patrick,
Then, so too, the opposite is true? (ie., 'time' is equivalent to the scalar
traverse of matter/mass). Then in multiple coordinate arrays (x-,y-,z- for
instance), can I also calculate scalar 'volume' as equivalent to 'time'?
(Careful here I am begining to use 'time' as a general concept).
Or can 'volume' defined as a void by scalar data, (visualize an inflated
balloon
cast within a plaster block and the plaster parametrically defines the
void), replace matter/mass?
Can 'light' replace 'time' in the above concepts?
RHN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Powers" <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 4:47 AM
Subject: Re: Does Matter/Mass Define Time?
>
>
> "R. Henry Nigl" <rhnl@exoptica.com> wrote in message
news:<200409030003.i83037Sv055779@mailbox7.ucsd.edu>...
> > Is the scalar traverse of matter/mass equivalent to time?
> > All answers welcome.
> >
> > R. Henry Nigl
> >
> > Thanks Frank.
> >
> > eoe@hypernet.com
>
> Yes.
>
> Consider a clock made in this manner: Have a very long ruler in empty
> space. Fire a gun in the direction of the ruler. By observing where
> the bullet is relative to the ruler time may be measured in units of
> length. We might call this a "standard meter."
>
> A standard meter is the interval during which a standard mass to which
> a standard force has been applied travels a standard distance in the
> absence of all other forces. (And this is a thought experiment! I know
> this is impractical.)
>
> Then in all physics, units of seconds may be replaced with such
> standard meters. Since this is merely a change of unit, all the
> mathematics remains valid.
Then, so too, the opposite is true? (ie., 'time' is equivalent to the scalar
traverse of matter/mass). Then in multiple coordinate arrays (x-,y-,z- for
instance), can I also calculate scalar 'volume' as equivalent to 'time'?
(Careful here I am begining to use 'time' as a general concept).
Or can 'volume' defined as a void by scalar data, (visualize an inflated
balloon
cast within a plaster block and the plaster parametrically defines the
void), replace matter/mass?
Can 'light' replace 'time' in the above concepts?
RHN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Powers" <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 4:47 AM
Subject: Re: Does Matter/Mass Define Time?
>
>
> "R. Henry Nigl" <rhnl@exoptica.com> wrote in message
news:<200409030003.i83037Sv055779@mailbox7.ucsd.edu>...
> > Is the scalar traverse of matter/mass equivalent to time?
> > All answers welcome.
> >
> > R. Henry Nigl
> >
> > Thanks Frank.
> >
> > eoe@hypernet.com
>
> Yes.
>
> Consider a clock made in this manner: Have a very long ruler in empty
> space. Fire a gun in the direction of the ruler. By observing where
> the bullet is relative to the ruler time may be measured in units of
> length. We might call this a "standard meter."
>
> A standard meter is the interval during which a standard mass to which
> a standard force has been applied travels a standard distance in the
> absence of all other forces. (And this is a thought experiment! I know
> this is impractical.)
>
> Then in all physics, units of seconds may be replaced with such
> standard meters. Since this is merely a change of unit, all the
> mathematics remains valid.