[QUOTE=soundhertz,Mar 5 2010, 01:39 AM]
That the laws of relativity do dictate to the passage of events in time, as they dictate to the movement of events thru space,
that this time dilation was predicted to near perfect mathematical accuracy by Einstein,
that the subsequent experiments by scientists breathless
to actually see what the data would yield - and out of breath when they saw it!! proved it,
that Einstein was once again proven spot on, in yet another overwhelmingly difficult area,
that further physics calculations utilize time dilation,
and finally that entire billion dollar industries depend on time dilation,
should at least cause you to search more carefully and fairly than just your own intuition, especially when information is so accessible.
Did Einstein prove the existence and behavior of "time" or did he just create a model that predicted the behavior of matter-energy more accurately relatively to each other in different force contexts?
[QUOTE]I wonder that what we call an 'instant' is non-time, in that an instant actually has no start and end point, it simply is a point of passage of the timeline of events, and when each instant occurs there is no other instant but that, and the addition of these non-time points then allows for measurement of the passage, and allows for 'living in time' as opposed to 'living in the moment'. Living in time entails memory of what came before. Living in the moment is not something we can accurately define via experience. But yet, all we are aware of is the present. We feel the passage of time, but we exist only in the present, because there is only one moment at a time. We are on the time-line, not in the dimension of time. If we were in the dimension of time we would be in our past concurrently with our present; it would not be consecutive. We move through the "spacious present" - that which is the ongoing sum of all moments thus far - one moment at a time. And each successive present instant is the only one we reside in. Regardless of our ability to measure the movement of the timeline through this spacious present, all exists strictly on a 'momentous' scale
We can measure time, but we don't live in it, we live in the present, that which is unmeasurable and timeless, yet adds up to = time. We + our past = time, but the we of 'here-and-now' is purely present, purely instantaneous.[/QUOTE]
Very well written and interesting. Have you considered that the things you use to subjectively reference "the past" in the present, such as memories, photographs, etc. all actually exist as current configurations of matter-energy (i.e. neural cells or ink on paper) that you compare with other configurations that you define as present-perception? I think that if you're brain was not trained to organize distinct memories and images in terms of sequence, you would have just an enormous quantity of similarities, like if you would cut up a film reel into all separate frames and then try to make sense of them.
The fact that your mind keeps track of memories in sequence is very impressive indeed, but is it the product of "time?" Don't you have memories where you can't figure out if one came before the other or vice versa? So when you are "measuring" time and making markers to classify things into distinct moments? If you photograph a sundial every hour for five hours, don't you just end up with five slightly different photos of the sundial? The light-energy that produced each photograph by changing the chemical structure of the film has not frozen time by converting light into chemical potential, has it?
[QUOTE]clock ticks to minutes will remain true, the intervals between the seconds, minutes, hours, etc. would differ between the ground and orbit. it's only the intervals that change; that's the 'dilation'. If you were away for 20 years traveling at c, your watch and you remains normal-you age 20 years. To your twin on earth, well they'd have been gone for a while.[/QUOTE]
Does "gone for a while" mean a longer or shorter while than 20 years? How long exactly, not that you could actually travel at C? It seems like it wouldn't matter, though, because even at sub C speeds in low-gravity areas, time slows down significantly (or only slightly?). This is the part I wish I could do complex math.
so if my wonderment is true, then can we deduce that the present is not conceptual but real, and a pre-requisite for the dimension that enables time flow? Because if this is the case, it existed already. It was existing when the universe hadn't yet expanded, since the universe was existing. The universe very likely wasn't existing in time yet, unless dimensionality was existing already as some sort of quantum genetic code, but the present doesn't depend on time, timelines need the timeless points of the instant. So is the present an absolute? Is it a real thing that a pre-universe requires? [/quote]
Is motion a prerequisite for the dimension measured as "length?" The dimension doesn't exist except to the extent it is applied by humans for measurement. Outside of human acts of measurement, things don't have dimensions - they just do what they do while we do what we do.
Any situation in which entropy is occurring can be attributed a temporal dimension, correct? Therefore, how could there ever have been a situation where time did not "exist?"
[quote]Or is the present nothing but a concept?
Though it is as equally hard to say there is no present as it is to say there is no past. But then again physics, especially the quantum variety, isn't very intuitive now, is it?[/quote]
Everything is a concept when you're conceptualizing it, no? Perceptions are generated through matter-energy interactions with otherwise undefinable events. A photograph is made by exposing chemical film or digital sensors to light. For a photograph to be a recognizable image, you have to focus the lens a certain way, prevent under or over exposure, etc. Those parameters you set on the camera to make a good photo are the equivalent of concepts.[/quote]
Concepts aren't true, false, or in/accurate in themselves - only in how they are applied. Furthermore, you can't say that because a photograph is blurry that the focus of the camera doesn't work. The photographer might not have known how it worked.