> > No, time is ALSO defined as the inverse of
> > frequency. IT COMES FROM THE VERY SIMPLE MATH
> > EQUATION. Please try to understand that!!!
>
> You do not seem to understand what definition means.
Of course I do! But since time and frequency are directly related to each other, that equation is part of the definition. Note also that frequency can be further defined in other precise terms include amplitude, phase, wavelength, etc...Time is a lot more ilusive!
> > Obviously you still don't understand what "time"
> > really is! It can happen to the best of us!!!
>
> I would say none of us really understands what time is,
> but unlike you I don't consider my opinions relevant
> for these discussions.
Please speak for yourself! Just because you don't or can't understand time does not mean that none of us really understands what time is!
Also, I am
not talking about opinions but rather about math equations on time to frequency relationships...
> > > From a dimension analytical point of view
> > > frequency doesn't even exist, time does.
>
> > Say what!? I could say the same EXACT thing! Time
> > does not exist ONLY frequency exists.
>
> You could say that, but you'd be wrong.
I am not wrong at all, on the contrary or the
inverse of it...
> Have you ever done dimension analysis?
Of what type? The main analysis that I usually do are usually time/frequency transform analysis for wave, encoding, data and information analysis...
> Fourier analysis... And no, I'm not having a hard time at all.
Well, the fact that you quickly corrected me on my spelling of "fourier" suggests it differently or the inverse of it! Typing fast we all make mistakes (encoding errors)!
-wirelessguru1