I understand time a little better

[jbriggs444]

I'm looking into relearning maths. Where can I find out about LaTeX?

You can pull down Info => How To => Latex Primer from here on the Physics Forums. That will take you to: https://www.physicsforums.com/help/latexhelp/

[Drat that @lekh2003 -- too fast for me!]

 

[lekh2003]

You can pull down Info => How To => Latex Primer from here on the Physics Forums. That will take you to: https://www.physicsforums.com/help/latexhelp/

[Drat that @lekh2003 -- too fast for me!]

I was actually looking through the webpage, reading through the latex methods, when @paulo84 asked the question. It was all a coincidence

 

[Mark44]

The OP does not appear interested in the correct order; it represents too much work, I think. He may well find a lot of enjoyment in dipping into various parts of Physics but that is no way for him to get any 'understanding' of the subject.

I agree completely. You have to crawl before you can walk, and you have to walk before you can run. Going to the music metaphor someone mentioned, classical and jazz musicians spend a lot of time practicing simple exercises before they get good.

If Newtonian Physics gives him problems then he needs to go backwards and not forwards in the subject until he finds a level with which he can cope.

Agreed

Also also I think it's a little harsh to accuse me of not having 'any' understanding. :(

No, it isn't harsh -- it is realistic, based on your fundamental misconceptions I've seen in several of your threads. For example, that time and distance are the same, and that all matrices have four elements that somehow must tie into the three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension

here's some maths, hope it works as I've been awake a long time.

v=d/t
t=d/v
t/d=v

The first two equations are equivalent, but the third equation does not follow. At any rate, your formula for velocity is correct only if velocity is constant.

It would seem there is a relationship between the inverse of displacement and 3 dimensional spacetime?

No. Making such grand assertions without understanding very basic mathematics is a fool's errand.

Since the work above shows that you really don't understand time "better," I'm closing this thread.

 

[lekh2003]

I agree completely. You have to crawl before you can walk, and you have to walk before you can run. Going to the music metaphor someone mentioned, classical and jazz musicians spend a lot of time practicing simple exercises before they get good.

Agreed

No, it isn't harsh -- it is realistic, based on your fundamental misconceptions I've seen in several of your threads. For example, that time and distance are the same, and that all matrices have four elements that somehow must tie into the three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension

The first two equations are equivalent, but the third equation does not follow. At any rate, your formula for velocity is correct only if velocity is constant.
No. Making such grand assertions without understanding very basic mathematics is a fool's errand.

I hope that @paulo84 is finally able to understand all of these things hearing it from a mentor.