Algebraic Equation for Time?

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1274
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Algebraic Equation for Time?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:40 pm

This is an algebraic equation for time I figured out last night. I don't like it, but I believe it might work.

What we observe as time is strictly relations between movement. For simplicity we will use a 24 hour clock as an example. Aω is equivalent 86,400 seconds being the potential relations of one cycle as “day”. Bϕ, is the actual relations at 3:00 a.m or 10,800 seconds.
As actual relations, Bϕ is a grade of Aω as:

T=________Aω________ → T= ________86,400ω______
..............Bϕ................................10,800ϕ



Bϕ has a constant state of change added to it, considering it is in a constant state of movement. This span of change relative to Aω, maintains a window of movement through A – B equivalent to 75,600.

T=________Aω________ → T= ________86,400ω______
...........Bϕ + (A-B)ϕ..................10,800ϕ+ 75,600ϕ



Adding (A – B) to Bϕ, or 10,800+ 75,600, does not take into account the change as progression from B → A as 1 cycle of movement, or 10,800 → 86,400 as 1 cycle.

This change begins with 10,800+1/(1 ≤ x) . This is considering all measurements of unity begin with 1 or a fraction of 1 as potential unity, with this unity itself equivalent to the second.

It ranges to 10,800 + 75,600 therefore is equal to 1/(1 ≤ x) ≤ BΔ ≤ (A-B) where BΔ is equivalent to a constant change.

T=___________Aω___________ → T= ____________86,400ω_____________
....Bϕ +(1/(1 ≤ x) ≤ BΔ ≤ (A-B).............10,800ϕ + (1/(1 ≤ x) ≤BΔ ≤75,600)ϕ



This constant change ranges from 1/(1 ≤ x) to 75,600 and is indefinite as pinpointing one movement causes a change in the measurement. Take for example observing three seconds later at 10,803 causes a change in the measurements as:

T= ____________ 86,400ω_____________
.....10,803ϕ + (1/(1 ≤ x) ≤ BΔ ≤ 75,597)ϕ



BΔ is equivalent to a constant state of change as relation. This change acts as linear relation between 1/(1 ≤ x) and (A – B). In these respects BΔ, as change observes an approximation between 1/(1 ≤ x) and 75,597.
Using the example above and observing a measurement where the cycle is complete the equation can be observed as:

T= __________86,400ω__________ → T= _________1ω___________
.........86,400ϕ+ (1/(1 ≤ x)≤ BΔ )ϕ...............1ϕ+ (1/(1 ≤ x) ≤ BΔ )ϕ


Considering 1ϕ+ (1/(1 ≤ x)≤ BΔ ) would require 1ω to exist as a fraction of:

_____1ω_____ → ____1ω____
.(1ϕ+ 1ϕ = BΔ)........(2ϕ = BΔ)


if 1/( 1 )= BΔ then; 1ϕ+ (1/(1 ≤ x)≤ BΔ ) must change to:


T= __________1ω___________
....1ϕ + (1/(1≪(n →∞)) = BΔ )ϕ

Where x is equivalent to a number that tends towards infinity. In these respects Time is always approximate as it is always divided by a continuous change at the peak of its cycle as the perpetual relation of particulate. In these respects what we understand of time is merely approximation of movement.

In summary Time is equivalent to Potential Particulate relations divided by Actual Particulate Relations plus a fraction less than or equal to one that is less than or equal to Actual particulate change which is less than or equal to A minus B.

T= ____________Aω____________ → ___________1ω___________
.... Bϕ + (1/(1 ≤ x) ≤ BΔ ≤ (A-B))ϕ .......(1ϕ + (1/(1≪(n →∞)) = BΔ )ϕ

Impenitent
Posts: 1754
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Algebraic Equation for Time?

Post by Impenitent » Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:46 pm

C=LO-CK

-Imp

uwot
Posts: 3435
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Algebraic Equation for Time?

Post by uwot » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:26 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:40 pm
For simplicity we will use a 24 hour clock as an example. Aω is equivalent 86,400 seconds being the potential relations of one cycle as “day”.
How are you defining seconds?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Algebraic Equation for Time?

Post by -1- » Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:15 pm

uwot wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:26 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:40 pm
For simplicity we will use a 24 hour clock as an example. Aω is equivalent 86,400 seconds being the potential relations of one cycle as “day”.
How are you defining seconds?
A second is one 86,400th of a period of a day. Methinks.

But maybe that's not what you asked. Maybe the answer should be "arbitrarily". Or "absolutely!" or "vividly."

wtf
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Algebraic Equation for Time?

Post by wtf » Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:00 am

-1- wrote:
Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:15 pm

A second is one 86,400th of a period of a day. Methinks.
That was back in the old days. These days, The second is 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 cesium 133 atom.


So if you want to know how long a second is, first get yourself a cesium atom ...

https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
Last edited by wtf on Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:03 am, edited 2 times in total.

wtf
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Algebraic Equation for Time?

Post by wtf » Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:01 am

(duplicate)

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1274
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Algebraic Equation for Time?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:19 pm

wtf wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:00 am
-1- wrote:
Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:15 pm

A second is one 86,400th of a period of a day. Methinks.
That was back in the old days. These days, The second is 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 cesium 133 atom.


So if you want to know how long a second is, first get yourself a cesium atom ...

https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
No argument against this standard at all. The intention was presenting a strictly algebraic equation for time where the variables, such as potential movement and actual movements are observed strictly for what they are: variables. Time is relative to the variables used to measure it, as time is merely the relation of movements.

The cesium atom should be able to be applied here, assuming you have an actual point of movement for variable B.

I think the equation gives an accurate description of time, however for whatever reason, I don't like it.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1274
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Algebraic Equation for Time?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:24 pm

uwot wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:26 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:40 pm
For simplicity we will use a 24 hour clock as an example. Aω is equivalent 86,400 seconds being the potential relations of one cycle as “day”.
How are you defining seconds?
It was merely an example of movements, any standard that observes potential and actual movement should work. Time is strictly the relation of particles as movement. What we observe as "seconds" constitute a particulate format, in that they are "particles" or "parts" of a standard or cycle of potential movement. The relation of seconds, as particulate, in turn are grades of a potential unity of relations, which in this case is the "day".

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1274
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Algebraic Equation for Time?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:30 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:24 pm
uwot wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:26 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:40 pm
For simplicity we will use a 24 hour clock as an example. Aω is equivalent 86,400 seconds being the potential relations of one cycle as “day”.
How are you defining seconds?
It was merely an example of movements, any standard that observes potential and actual movement should work. Time is strictly the relation of particles as movement. What we observe as "seconds" constitute a particulate format, in that they are "particles" or "parts" of a standard or cycle of potential movement. The relation of seconds, as particulate, in turn are grades of a potential unity of relations, which in this case is the "day".

So to answer your question in simpler terms: Seconds are particulate, with the relation of particulate in turn determining the nature of time.

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 520
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Algebraic Equation for Time?

Post by A_Seagull » Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:28 am

T=$

Time is money!

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Algebraic Equation for Time?

Post by -1- » Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:42 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:19 pm
I think the equation gives an accurate description of time, however for whatever reason, I don't like it.
There are equations that I don't like, either, though this is not one of them.

I hate equating women to men. Vive la differance!

I hate equating "Lucy in the Sky" by the Beatles to "Salmon in the Creek" by Chopin.

I hate equating "Long hair" to "Short brains."

I hate equating the structure of the solar system to sub-atomic structure.

I hate equating life to a beach. Life should not be spent flat, wet, full of sand.

I hate equating equations.

I hate equating the nineteen-sixties to drug culture. (Although it is unavoidable in the west, in the Eastern Block there was nothing like it.)

There are some equations that I like. Really like. But I am too tired now to think of them.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Algebraic Equation for Time?

Post by -1- » Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:46 pm

wtf wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:00 am
-1- wrote:
Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:15 pm

A second is one 86,400th of a period of a day. Methinks.
That was back in the old days. These days, The second is 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 cesium 133 atom.


So if you want to know how long a second is, first get yourself a cesium atom ...

https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
Granted, there is that. And then there are the "sloppy seconds". We shan't delve into that. Or dive into that -- even less. Yikes.

uwot
Posts: 3435
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Algebraic Equation for Time?

Post by uwot » Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:41 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:24 pm
Time is strictly the relation of particles as movement.
So are you happy with the SI definition of 'second' as movement of particles, as detailed by -1-?
Er, I mean wtf.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1274
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Algebraic Equation for Time?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:06 am

uwot wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:41 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:24 pm
Time is strictly the relation of particles as movement.
So are you happy with the SI definition of 'second' as movement of particles, as detailed by -1-?
Er, I mean wtf.
It's a viable one, but not limited strictly to that considering the nature of "particulate" is not limited strictly to atoms but any "part" of a whole. Under that definition cellestial events also apply

RustyBert
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2017 7:25 pm

Re: Algebraic Equation for Time?

Post by RustyBert » Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:12 pm

Eodnhoj7 - You're obviously very creative and bright. (And apparently smoke alot of weed.) It'd be nice to see you put your talents into something that matters, like writing fiction, writing for causes, etc. (and maybe you already do). You've obviously mastered the language of math and science but evidently not the practice of it. Your posts remind me of the sentence "What color is love?" The words make sense grammatically, but obviously the sentence is nonsense (assuming we're not being fanciful, poetic) - love is an emotion, and emotions aren't things that have a physical color.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests