How fast is time

[>< V ><]

Thank you for proving my criticism well founded.

Your criticism is noted.

Now, do you understand the difference between 5 kg and 5 m, yes or no?

If you answered yes, then please continue to the next question.

Are you a physicist?

A unit of flow, kilograms / second

A unit of flux, Watts / meter^2

Indirectly taking the position that two numbers have the same physical meaning when they have different Standard International units is what makes you science lay folk.

So by the same logic there also isn't such a thing a flow of electric charge (a.k.a. electric current) given that it is measure in Coulomb/second and Coulomb=/=Kg.
Just one problem, the name flow has nothing to do with a physical transport of mass but rather a fundamental mathematical property that relates this fields.

Bitch please, just admit that you are done. Stop flogging the dead horse.

Ya know, I've been accused of being pedantic, and I'm forced to be, exactly because of people like you Master_Ghost_Knight.

Notice I said "A unit". Notice I did not say "The unit". Because there are other ways to express these units, whether it be through prefixes or the context of the problem.

Clearly, flow of charge is different contextually than the flow of water. This enters the equation through density. And density can represent all sorts of things. Whether it be density of mass, density of charge, density of energy, density of atheists, and this results in a different final unit, kg/s, C/s, J/s, atheists/s.

Notice that energy flow, J/s is otherwise known as Watts.

Thus, flow can have the unit W.

Notice that flux has a unit W/m^2.

Since W does not equal W/m^2, flow can never equate to flux.

 

[australopithecus]

Now, do you understand the difference between 5 kg and 5 m, yes or no?

If you answered yes, then please continue to the next question.

Are you a physicist?

Please read, and pay attention to, every word I have directed to you in this thread.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Clearly, flow of charge is different contextually than the flow of water. This enters the equation through density. And density can represent all sorts of things. Whether it be density of mass, density of charge, density of energy, density of atheists, and this results in a different final unit, kg/s, C/s, J/s, atheists/s.

Notice that energy flow, J/s is otherwise known as Watts.

Thus, flow can have the unit W.

Notice that flux has a unit W/m^2.

Since W does not equal W/m^2, flow can never equate to flux.

J=Kgm^2/s^2, therefore J/s=Kg.m^2/s^3, so by your logic this shouldn't be a flow either, yet you say that it is.
Surprinsingly W=Kgm^2/s^3, thus W/m^2 = Kg/s^3. You admit Kg/s as flow, you admit Kg.m^2/s^3 as flow, but kg/s^3 you do not, at the same time you say that non of them should be.

 

[>< V ><]

Now, do you understand the difference between 5 kg and 5 m, yes or no?

If you answered yes, then please continue to the next question.

Are you a physicist?

Please read, and pay attention to, every word I have directed to you in this thread.

I have no doubt you understand the difference between 5 kg and 5 m, but you won't admit it, because your motivation isn't the truth.

Clearly, flow of charge is different contextually than the flow of water. This enters the equation through density. And density can represent all sorts of things. Whether it be density of mass, density of charge, density of energy, density of atheists, and this results in a different final unit, kg/s, C/s, J/s, atheists/s.

Notice that energy flow, J/s is otherwise known as Watts.

Thus, flow can have the unit W.

Notice that flux has a unit W/m^2.

Since W does not equal W/m^2, flow can never equate to flux.

J=Kgm^2/s^2, therefore J/s=Kg.m^2/s^3, so by your logic this shouldn't be a flow either, yet you say that it is.
Surprinsingly W=Kgm^2/s^3, thus W/m^2 = Kg/s^3. You admit Kg/s as flow, you admit Kg.m^2/s^3 as flow, but kg/s^3 you do not, at the same time you say that non of them should be.

You're a fanatic. You actually think breaking down SI units into the fundamental units of physics changes anything?

One minute, one minute of your time is all it takes to "google" the units of flux and flow. But you won't do it. Because just like australopithecus, your motivation isn't the truth.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

One minute, one minute of your time is all it takes to "google" the units of flux and flow. But you won't do it. Because just like australopithecus, your motivation isn't the truth.

First result says that Flux is Flow.

What was that?

 

[beefpatty]

One minute, one minute of your time is all it takes to "google" the units of flux and flow. But you won't do it. Because just like australopithecus, your motivation isn't the truth.

First result says that Flux is Flow.

What was that?

To clarify, the first result does not say that flux is flow, but flow per unit area.

 

[australopithecus]

One minute, one minute of your time is all it takes to "google" the units of flux and flow. But you won't do it. Because just like australopithecus, your motivation isn't the truth.

My motivation was to call bullshit on your childish attitude, nothing more. Not once did I even touch on the topic of flux/flow, more to the point I told you I would not as I am not a student of physics it would be dishonest of me to debate such. A point you ignored it seems.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

This is getting rather frustrating. So lets establish soma basic things, you can not argue that X is no Y because X does not have the same units as some other thing Z that is Y when at the same time you have W that fails the criteria for the exact same reasons but it is still Y.
You can not argue flow is not flux because you see examples where the term is used and they do not have the same units, while all across the board you find other examples where flux is used and they do not have anywhere near the same units either. And this should be obvious even to layman who don't have a clue what the hell are this things.
The reason why they have diferent units across the board is not because they had the unfortunate idea of naming everything with the exact same name, because in fact it does not translate a physical phenomena but rather is the name of the mathematical operation you perform over the equations that describe the physical phenomena.
And this particular confusion is only even possible in english, flux and flow are synonim, both this word translate to the exact same latin word (from which it was derived) "fluxo".
Now what is really a mistake is to confuse "flow" with "flow density", if you want to stick a flag and insist that "flow" is "flux density" then I am even going to grant you that, in that case the answer to my chanlendge would be even simpler because all he had to do was to quote me directly the Newton's equation. The fact that he failed the chalendge was not because he was using a diferent definition of flow, but because he had no idea what it was altogheter, that is because he never studied this thing much less know the importance of this things, his knowledge is limited to what he can google. And when he was faced with something he can't google (but should have known by what he claims) his literacy seems to have gone. That was the whole point of this exercise, not this tagent.

P.s. And let us not forget that ><V>< already conceede as flow entities that are under the exact same relation to what he considers flux, in fact the relation he gives is exactly the oposite of what beefpatty is giving.

 

[Demojen]

To address the OP, I'll answer in an equally ridiculous question.

Which way is up?

 

[>< V ><]

To clarify, the first result does not say that flux is flow, but flow per unit area.

Why isn't this case closed?

This is what I mean, this isn't difficult stuff here. We're not debating whether the wave function is real or not, we're debating frigg'n units, the very first thing taught in any introductory physics class. You should be able to come in like beefpatty and recognize immediately that flux and flow are different, because they have different units.


This should be a no brainer for someone educated in physics. Thus, I claim that this is empirical evidence that Master_Ghost_Knight is not educated in physics.

This is getting rather frustrating. So lets establish soma basic things, you can not argue that X is no Y because X does not have the same units as some other thing Z that is Y when at the same time you have W that fails the criteria for the exact same reasons but it is still Y.
You can not argue flow is not flux because you see examples where the term is used and they do not have the same units, while all across the board you find other examples where flux is used and they do not have anywhere near the same units either. And this should be obvious even to layman who don't have a clue what the hell are this things.
The reason why they have diferent units across the board is not because they had the unfortunate idea of naming everything with the exact same name, because in fact it does not translate a physical phenomena but rather is the name of the mathematical operation you perform over the equations that describe the physical phenomena.
And this particular confusion is only even possible in english, flux and flow are synonim, both this word translate to the exact same latin word (from which it was derived) "fluxo".
Now what is really a mistake is to confuse "flow" with "flow density", if you want to stick a flag and insist that "flow" is "flux density" then I am even going to grant you that, in that case the answer to my chanlendge would be even simpler because all he had to do was to quote me directly the Newton's equation. The fact that he failed the chalendge was not because he was using a diferent definition of flow, but because he had no idea what it was altogheter, that is because he never studied this thing much less know the importance of this things, his knowledge is limited to what he can google. And when he was faced with something he can't google (but should have known by what he claims) his literacy seems to have gone. That was the whole point of this exercise, not this tagent.

P.s. And let us not forget that ><V>< already conceede as flow entities that are under the exact same relation to what he considers flux, in fact the relation he gives is exactly the oposite of what beefpatty is giving.

One minute, one minute of your time is all it takes to "google" the units of flux and flow. But you won't do it. Because just like australopithecus, your motivation isn't the truth.

My motivation was to call bullshit on your childish attitude, nothing more. Not once did I even touch on the topic of flux/flow, more to the point I told you I would not as I am not a student of physics it would be dishonest of me to debate such. A point you ignored it seems.

You truly are clueless, aren't you?

Interpreting my disdain for you as "childish", contributes to my disdain for you.

The context of the debate is clearly, flux and flow. Then you come in with the logical fallacy, irrelevant thesis, that I am childish, in an attempt to argue the logical fallacy, poisoning the well, that because I'm childish, you shouldn't believe my arguments.

Let me clue you in on something, atheist. Only a moron would try and justify a logical fallacy, and you commited two.

Now dance for me australopithecus. Dance.

To address the OP, I'll answer in an equally ridiculous question.

Which way is up?

Whether time is constant or not is a valid question.

And the answer is, no, it is not constant.

 

[australopithecus]

The context of the debate is clearly, flux and flow. Then you come in with the logical fallacy, irrelevant thesis, that I am childish, in an attempt to argue the logical fallacy, poisoning the well, that because I'm childish, you shouldn't believe my arguments.

Let me clue you in on something, atheist. Only a moron would try and justify a logical fallacy, and you commited two.

Care to point them out?

Just so you know, my first comment wasn't an ad hom (I'm assuming that's one fallacy you're referring to) as I didn't use it to rebut your argument. I said "Captain unwarranted self importance is back", not "Your argument is invalid because you are Captain unwarranted self importance". Please reacquaint yourself with the details of an ad hominem logical fallacy. I mocked you, but mocking is an ad hom in and of itself.

Nice try though, sonny.

 

[sgrunterundt]

First result says that Flux is Flow.

What was that?

To clarify, the first result does not say that flux is flow, but flow per unit area.

Yes, if you only read the first paragraph. In fields dealing with transport of some substance you are correct. In fields like electrodynamics flow per unit area would be flux density. The magnetic B field is called the magnetic flux density. This field integrated over a surface bounded by a conductor loop give you the amount of flux through the loop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_density

Depending on who you are flux is either a fancy word for flow (in units of [some unit quantifying an amount of something]/[time]) OR it is a fancy word for flow per unit area in units of [some unit quantifying an amount of something]/([time][area])).

Now can we please just agree to use one or the other and get back do discussing something meaningful rather than semantics?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I guess being high on Jesus does prevent you from looking at the obvious and admitting that you are wrong.

To clarify, the first result does not say that flux is flow, but flow per unit area.

Why isn't this case closed?
This is what I mean, this isn't difficult stuff here. We're not debating whether the wave function is real or not, we're debating frigg'n units, the very first thing taught in any introductory physics class. You should be able to come in like beefpatty and recognize immediately that flux and flow are different, because they have different units.

This should be a no brainer for someone educated in physics. Thus, I claim that this is empirical evidence that Master_Ghost_Knight is not educated in physics.

Clearly, flow of charge is different contextually than the flow of water. This enters the equation through density. And density can represent all sorts of things. Whether it be density of mass, density of charge, density of energy, density of atheists, and this results in a different final unit, kg/s, C/s, J/s, atheists/s.
Thus, flow can have the unit W. [not quote. Thus =Kg.m^2/s^3]

Notice that flux has a unit W/m^2. [not quote. Thus =Kg/s^3., thus saying flux=flow per unit of area]

Electric Flux[/url] "]
Electrical flux has SI units of volt metres (V m), or, equivalently, newton metres squared per coulomb (N m^2 C^−1). Thus, the SI base units of electric flux are kg"¢m^3"¢s^−3"¢A^−1.

Flux[/url] "]
In the various subfields of physics, there exist two common usages of the term flux, both with rigorous mathematical frameworks.

In the study of transport phenomena (heat transfer, mass transfer and fluid dynamics), flux is defined as flow per unit area, where flow is the movement of some quantity per time.[1] Flux, in this definition, is a vector.

In the fields of electromagnetism and mathematics,</B><B> flux is usually the integral of a vector quantity, flux density, over a finite surface . It is an integral operator that acts on a vector field similarly to the gradient, divergence and curl operators found in vector analysis. The result of this integration is a scalar quantity called flux.[2] </COLOR><i></i>The magnetic flux is thus the integral of the magnetic vector field B over a surface [not quote. Thus = Kg.m^2.A^-1.s^-2.], and the electric flux is defined similarly. Using this definition, the flux of the Poynting vector over a specified surface is the rate at which electromagnetic energy flows through that surface. <COLOR color="#00FF00">Confusingly, the Poynting vector is sometimes called the power flux, which is an example of the first usage of flux, above.[3] It has units of watts per square metre (W/m^2)

Thus the flux of the poynting vector as defined in fields would be in units of W.

Gravitational flux[/url]"] The integral form of Gauss's law for gravity states: CInt(dv,gdA)=-4.pi.GM.

Units= m^3s^−2

The "flow of gravitic force" is your made up term that you refuse to offer any evidence to support. How ironic, an atheist, that constantly whines that theists don't give any supporting evidence for their claim, doesn't give any supporting evidence for his claim.You can't possible be any more irrational than for you to state what is irrational and then do it yourself.

Fuck me, let us be consistent shall we. So which is it?
Is your definition of flow scalar or vector? Is your definition of flux scalar or vector?
In fields is the definition of flux scalar or vector?
Do the units have to be the same or can it be different? Is W units of flux or flow?
In fields is flux=flow or is flux=flow per unit of area?

So is there or isn't there an answer to:

Tell me using Newtons equation for gravity:
F=G*M*m/(R^2)
And lets imagine that you have a cluster of asteroids with total mass M whit a center of mass on point P.
And this is what I want you to do. You are going to tell me in which coordinate system is the force of gravity expressed in. You are going to select an arbitrary geometry for the distribution of the asteroids with a number not lower than 4, you are going to select an arbitrary geometry that encompasses all asteroids and tell me the expression for the flow of the gravitic force for the geometry you chose.

?

Get a clue!

P.s. Here is some inspiration from Jesus for you, "do not fucking lie, or whatever".

 

[>< V ><]

Just so you know, my first comment wasn't an ad hom (I'm assuming that's one fallacy you're referring to) as I didn't use it to rebut your argument. I said "Captain unwarranted self importance is back", not "Your argument is invalid because you are Captain unwarranted self importance". Please reacquaint yourself with the details of an ad hominem logical fallacy. I mocked you, but mocking is an ad hom in and of itself.

Nice try though, sonny.

You already stated your motive. Lying about it now only further damages your already dismal credibility.

My motivation was to call bullshit on your childish attitude.

Yes, if you only read the first paragraph. In fields dealing with transport of some substance you are correct. In fields like electrodynamics flow per unit area would be flux density. The magnetic B field is called the magnetic flux density. This field integrated over a surface bounded by a conductor loop give you the amount of flux through the loop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_density

Depending on who you are flux is either a fancy word for flow (in units of [some unit quantifying an amount of something]/[time]) OR it is a fancy word for flow per unit area in units of [some unit quantifying an amount of something]/([time][area])).

Now can we please just agree to use one or the other and get back do discussing something meaningful rather than semantics?

One or the other? Without doubt, without ambiguity, flux is what's defined in electromagnetism, not flow. The flux integral is not a flow integral.

The reason is simple, because an electric field doesn't "flow". The vectors that make up a vector field do not flow from the charge, they are fixed with respect to the charge. Similar to a Koosh ball, the rubber strands don't "flow" from the center, they are fixed with respect to the center. The rubber strands don't "flow" through a Gaussian surface, they flux through a Gaussian surface.

Some physicists do believe the H-field is the fundamental field and call it the magnetic field and call the B-field a flux density or magnetic induction. But other physicists believe the B-field is the fundamental field and call it the magnetic field and call the H-field, the H-field.

P.s. Here is some inspiration from Jesus for you, "do not fucking lie, or whatever".

Was that three more Wikipedia quotes?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

P.s. Here is some inspiration from Jesus for you, "do not fucking lie, or whatever".

Was that there more Wikipedia quotes?

Was there a point? Or are you just going to weasel your way out again?
Last time I checked you still owed an admission that you were full of shit.