: :Wayne :...Since motion is linear, time is linear

ZC: Not all motion is linear.

Wayne: Can you offer an example of nonlinear motion

ZC: Motion need not be linear, and even if it was this need not follow.

Wayne: Again, I seek an example.

Wayne: :Without matter, and motion combined, there is nothing to change in the way of "relationships" among "physical" bodies. Time has one, and only one function. That is to describe some increment of change.

ZC: Time needn't be restricted to this function.

Wayne: What other practicle application can you think of

Wayne: :Since increments, by definition, are unchanging (an inch is always an inch & a second is always a second) time is fixed.

ZC: This is simply not true. Time and distance intervals between events are relative, not absolute. A second between events for one observer's coordinate system is part time and part space between the events for another.

Wayne: You speak as though "relativity" is a law. It is not. It is a theory. Kip Thorne takes this same approach in his book. To say: "This is simply not true." Is simply premature.

Wayne: :In other words it won't warp or bend. If it warps it ain't time.

ZC: Since your assumption that space and time intervals has long sense been proven to be a Newtonian error, this does not follow.

Wayne: Again, there is no proof. That is why it is still called a theory. Assuming Newton made an error may be premature. Maybe his math simply needs some fine tuning. After all we still use his laws for calculations involving NASA missions.

• Re: multi time dimension?! - Zephram_Cochrane/">Zephram Cochrane - November 27, 1999 - 06:14 UTC
  • Re: multi time dimension?! - Lau,_symmetry_is_beautiful/">Lau, symmetry is beautiful - November 28, 1999 - 13:53 UTC