My question here is: IS MOTION DERIVED FROM TIME ?
or is time derived from motion ?
Thanks for comments.
Yours Amrit
QUOTE (amrit+Apr 29 2009, 08:13 PM)
My question here is: IS MOTION DERIVED FROM TIME ?
or is time derived from motion ?
Thanks for comments.
Yours Amrit
English philosopher John McTaggart Ellis, Hegel’s scholar is saying:
It will be convenient to begin our enquiry by asking whether anything existent can possess the characteristic of being in time. I shall endeavour to prove that it cannot. ("The Unreality of Time, McTaggart, Mind: A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy 17: 456-73. (1908) )
as nobody answer my question Ill do it myself:
TIME IS DERIVED FROM MOTION IN TIMELESS SPACE.
Thank you.
yours amrit
or is time derived from motion ?
Thanks for comments.
Yours Amrit
English philosopher John McTaggart Ellis, Hegel’s scholar is saying:
It will be convenient to begin our enquiry by asking whether anything existent can possess the characteristic of being in time. I shall endeavour to prove that it cannot. ("The Unreality of Time, McTaggart, Mind: A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy 17: 456-73. (1908) )
as nobody answer my question Ill do it myself:
TIME IS DERIVED FROM MOTION IN TIMELESS SPACE.
Thank you.
yours amrit
Time is at its simplest derived from motion of our planet and the Sun. Ie a day is ~24 hours or 24 sub divisions of the time it takes us to go from day to night and back to day, an hour 1/24th of that and a minute 1/60th of an hour and a second 1/60th of that, which is due mainly to ancient civilisations being obsessed with base 6, thus the degree system.
And more precisely it is now derived precisely according to relativity and the atomic vibrations of a caesium atom. Time per se does not exist discretely but is related to your relative motion, most of the time this is the same or very similar to every one else's so it doesn't matter too much. It would be true to say that there is no such thing as absolute time. Motion and time are intimately related it would be fair to say they are co-derived one from the other. Motion and time like time and space. space-time are the same thing but with 4 co-ordinates instead of three.
It's useless to talk about time without space and space without time, they are not discreet entities, derivation comes only from an understanding how they are related and a bit of fiddling around with SR and Lorentz transforms.
And more precisely it is now derived precisely according to relativity and the atomic vibrations of a caesium atom. Time per se does not exist discretely but is related to your relative motion, most of the time this is the same or very similar to every one else's so it doesn't matter too much. It would be true to say that there is no such thing as absolute time. Motion and time are intimately related it would be fair to say they are co-derived one from the other. Motion and time like time and space. space-time are the same thing but with 4 co-ordinates instead of three.
It's useless to talk about time without space and space without time, they are not discreet entities, derivation comes only from an understanding how they are related and a bit of fiddling around with SR and Lorentz transforms.
QUOTE (amrit+May 4 2009, 04:33 PM)
as nobody answer my question Ill do it myself:
TIME IS DERIVED FROM MOTION IN TIMELESS SPACE.
Thank you.
yours amrit
What is your ‘ TIMELESS SPACE ‘ ?
What mechanism derive TIME FROM MOTION IN TIMELESS SPACE ?
============================
QUOTE (s0cratus+May 5 2009, 03:57 AM)
What is your ‘ TIMELESS SPACE ‘ ?
What mechanism derive TIME FROM MOTION IN TIMELESS SPACE ?
============================
timeless space is physical space in which massive objects and elementary particles move
human mind is a mechanism that from motion derive time as a run of clocks
when clock stop, time stop too
see more
http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments..._2009__MIND.pdf
What mechanism derive TIME FROM MOTION IN TIMELESS SPACE ?
============================
timeless space is physical space in which massive objects and elementary particles move
human mind is a mechanism that from motion derive time as a run of clocks
when clock stop, time stop too
see more
http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments..._2009__MIND.pdf
QUOTE (amrit+May 5 2009, 10:50 AM)
timeless space is physical space in which massive objects and elementary particles move
see more
http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments..._2009__MIND.pdf
Your answer is political, not scientific.
Because all
‘massive objects and elementary particles move ‘ . . . .
. . . . in the Vacuum . .
. . .or in the Cosmic Microwave Background Frame . . .
What is your ‘ TIMELESS SPACE ‘ ?
============================
see more
http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments..._2009__MIND.pdf
Your answer is political, not scientific.
Because all
‘massive objects and elementary particles move ‘ . . . .
. . . . in the Vacuum . .
. . .or in the Cosmic Microwave Background Frame . . .
What is your ‘ TIMELESS SPACE ‘ ?
============================
I'll take a stab at this. I'm not saying this is true or provable, i'm just going to say what i have always pictured time to be, an uneducated guess as my studies have not gone in depth into such subjects, i wouldn't expect so until maybe university.
I don't believe time is something humans have made, in order to explain motion. I think time itself is is what allows motion to happen.
So i guess i'm saying motion was derived from time, but i have nothing to back this up in a debate, and i will gladly change my concept of time if somebody could pm me some sort of explanation as to why
.
I don't believe time is something humans have made, in order to explain motion. I think time itself is is what allows motion to happen.
So i guess i'm saying motion was derived from time, but i have nothing to back this up in a debate, and i will gladly change my concept of time if somebody could pm me some sort of explanation as to why
.
QUOTE (s0cratus+May 5 2009, 03:17 PM)
Your answer is political, not scientific.
Because all
‘massive objects and elementary particles move ‘ . . . .
. . . . in the Vacuum . .
. . .or in the Cosmic Microwave Background Frame . . .
What is your ‘ TIMELESS SPACE ‘ ?
============================
timeless space is physical space in which material objects exist
http://www.wbabin.net/sorli/sorli16.pdf
Because all
‘massive objects and elementary particles move ‘ . . . .
. . . . in the Vacuum . .
. . .or in the Cosmic Microwave Background Frame . . .
What is your ‘ TIMELESS SPACE ‘ ?
============================
timeless space is physical space in which material objects exist
http://www.wbabin.net/sorli/sorli16.pdf
QUOTE (Michael J+May 6 2009, 12:29 AM)
I don't believe time is something humans have made, in order to explain motion. I think time itself is is what allows motion to happen.
That there are two times, one by which humans 'clock' motion and one which allows motion to happen, is profound.
www.nowtimesite.com
By "profound" do you mean counter-factual, inconsistent and undemonstrated?
Like the earlier poster said 1 second is determined from the behavior of a cesium atom.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jun 1 2009, 11:41 PM)
By "profound" do you mean counter-factual, inconsistent and undemonstrated?
I would be in good company if that were true, Penner.
Counter-factual, space cannot and never will curve.
Inconsistent. Einstein changed his mind many times about his inconsistencies. (He called them paradoxes)
Undemonstrated. Well, there you have me. And, yes, that's where Albert blossomed.
but thanks for the promotion www.nowtimesite.com
Profound is the idea that Newton pointed out the difference between the two times so long ago.
Remember me for this Penner: "You could switch off all the clocks but natural time would continue unaltered. Therefore, as I point out on the site, 'Clock time is peripheral to and distinct from Nature's time'" Undemonstrated but obvious.
I would be in good company if that were true, Penner.
Counter-factual, space cannot and never will curve.
Inconsistent. Einstein changed his mind many times about his inconsistencies. (He called them paradoxes)
Undemonstrated. Well, there you have me. And, yes, that's where Albert blossomed.
but thanks for the promotion www.nowtimesite.com
Profound is the idea that Newton pointed out the difference between the two times so long ago.
Remember me for this Penner: "You could switch off all the clocks but natural time would continue unaltered. Therefore, as I point out on the site, 'Clock time is peripheral to and distinct from Nature's time'" Undemonstrated but obvious.
Space does not bend: Light speeds up near a star
Space does bend: Experimentally demonstrated Shapiro Delay
Thus, your position is counter-factual.
Space does bend: Experimentally demonstrated Shapiro Delay
Thus, your position is counter-factual.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 13 2009, 01:02 AM)
Space does not bend: Light speeds up near a star
Space does bend: Experimentally demonstrated Shapiro Delay
Thus, your position is counter-factual.
Sorry to take so long to get back to you. I have other things to do.
Your "facts" are that c increases its speed presumably beyond c, and that a volume of empty, nothing bends. Can't you see the difficulty proving those "facts".
Is your Chinese God the faith merchant you are following here, Penner?
I at least have a rational explanation, even though it is not "proven".
Space does bend: Experimentally demonstrated Shapiro Delay
Thus, your position is counter-factual.
Sorry to take so long to get back to you. I have other things to do.
Your "facts" are that c increases its speed presumably beyond c, and that a volume of empty, nothing bends. Can't you see the difficulty proving those "facts".
Is your Chinese God the faith merchant you are following here, Penner?
I at least have a rational explanation, even though it is not "proven".
Hee. I was contrasting the predictions of Newtonian particle theory with General Relativity. So the by calling out the predictions of line 1 as nonsense, you reject Newtonian particle theory in favor of GR.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 20 2009, 12:32 AM)
Hee. I was contrasting the predictions of Newtonian particle theory with General Relativity. So the by calling out the predictions of line 1 as nonsense, you reject Newtonian particle theory in favor of GR.
You are just talking gobbledygook with fancy labels, because I caught you making a nonesensical statement.
There was no comparison or contrast involved. Just two plainly irrational statements.
I came back to the board because I thought about light speeding up due to the proximity of a massive object. If you were watching the source of a beam of light and a massive object passed across it, the object would have to pass the beam (you are watching) before its mass could affect the light's speed! At that point it could have little or no affect on the light beam's speed. Any speed up before that would be blocked by the object. UNLESS you change your mind now to admit that SPACE curves the light. Which is the normal gibberish mouthed on this board.
Break down. Read my website www.nowtimesite.com That and the Hypothesis/Rationale will give you something worthwhile to think about.
You are just talking gobbledygook with fancy labels, because I caught you making a nonesensical statement.
There was no comparison or contrast involved. Just two plainly irrational statements.
I came back to the board because I thought about light speeding up due to the proximity of a massive object. If you were watching the source of a beam of light and a massive object passed across it, the object would have to pass the beam (you are watching) before its mass could affect the light's speed! At that point it could have little or no affect on the light beam's speed. Any speed up before that would be blocked by the object. UNLESS you change your mind now to admit that SPACE curves the light. Which is the normal gibberish mouthed on this board.
Break down. Read my website www.nowtimesite.com That and the Hypothesis/Rationale will give you something worthwhile to think about.
One of our leading cranks is back.
Yes, it would be expected that you didn't understand what rpenner was doing with those statements, and it is equally understandable that you don't understand after it's explained to you.
QUOTE
You are just talking gobbledygook with fancy labels, because I caught you making a nonesensical statement.
Yes, it would be expected that you didn't understand what rpenner was doing with those statements, and it is equally understandable that you don't understand after it's explained to you.
AMRIT
Motion is derived from time. Newtonian time. My website has a clear explanation of how it happens. But as Penner points out it is purely theoretical. However, if it is rational and fits a general theory of the universe (see the Hypothesis/Rationale) it should not be discarded too hastily.
Motion is derived from time. Newtonian time. My website has a clear explanation of how it happens. But as Penner points out it is purely theoretical. However, if it is rational and fits a general theory of the universe (see the Hypothesis/Rationale) it should not be discarded too hastily.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 13 2009, 01:02 AM)
Space does not bend: Light speeds up near a star
Space does bend: Experimentally demonstrated Shapiro Delay
Thus, your position is counter-factual.
Penner 先生 你 是不是 中國 o 你 的 姓 是 英文 o
對不起
If you intended to make a comparison between the favored theories, I'm sorry.
I was expecting your own response, not an instruction.
I do not accept the likelihood of either theory being correct and so I have been exploring possibilities. I put them on the board for rational appraisal, and while I appreciate your position as moderator is somewhat prestigious, I cannot admit much respect for historical theories that are so unreasonable.
Space does bend: Experimentally demonstrated Shapiro Delay
Thus, your position is counter-factual.
Penner 先生 你 是不是 中國 o 你 的 姓 是 英文 o
對不起
If you intended to make a comparison between the favored theories, I'm sorry.
I was expecting your own response, not an instruction.
I do not accept the likelihood of either theory being correct and so I have been exploring possibilities. I put them on the board for rational appraisal, and while I appreciate your position as moderator is somewhat prestigious, I cannot admit much respect for historical theories that are so unreasonable.
QUOTE
I cannot admit much respect for historical theories that are so unreasonable.
You might feel them to be unreasonable, but that just means you don't understand them. Relativity has been experimentally and observationally verified to astounding accuracy.
If you want to come up with a replacement, it will have to be able to do the same.
Penner 是 德国 的 姓氏
But I do (listed in order of decreasing skill) English, Japanese, Spanish, and other languages. (German and English; Spanish, Italian and French; Chinese and Japanese are all somewhat related in written form.)
But I do (listed in order of decreasing skill) English, Japanese, Spanish, and other languages. (German and English; Spanish, Italian and French; Chinese and Japanese are all somewhat related in written form.)
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 20 2009, 08:36 PM)
Penner 是 德国 的 姓氏
太棒了
Hace muchas anos, ich spricht en die Schule.
eh bien,
什麼 回答
Did you read my paper (especially the hypothesis/Rationale) or not?
太棒了
Hace muchas anos, ich spricht en die Schule.
eh bien,
什麼 回答
Did you read my paper (especially the hypothesis/Rationale) or not?
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 20 2009, 08:34 PM)
You might feel them to be unreasonable, but that just means you don't understand them. Relativity has been experimentally and observationally verified to astounding accuracy.
If you want to come up with a replacement, it will have to be able to do the same.
OK. Since you are being reasonable I'll answer you.
I admit I sound as if I am talking about the whole theories, but Penner had just made two statements and those are what I was referring to as theories (for star-light bending around a massive object)
1. Light speeds up (and space does not bend, which I take it to mean that light does not bend) as a massive object passes by or it passes by. I said, if you are looking at a ray of star-light and a massive object passes across it, the object blocks the light until the massive object just passes the ray. Then, if it speeds up the ray, it's too late to account for it's earlier arrival at the massive object, (I didn't say the rest of this but it follows) and it is no good speeding up c (!) on its journey to the viewer because the light from the massive object would have been speeded up by the object too. (If passing through gravity is supposed to speed it up).
2. Space bends. A volume of space is empty. It is nothing. In whichever direction you "point" it is is exactly the same. It cannot bend.
Space itself does not have to bend. There is another possibility. Yes, it is unproven, but with due respect to the board I cannot believe that space has been proven to bend.
QUOTE (Nowtime+Jul 22 2009, 09:05 AM)
OK. Since you are being reasonable I'll answer you.
I admit I sound as if I am talking about the whole theories, but Penner had just made two statements and those are what I was referring to as theories (for star-light bending around a massive object)
1. Light speeds up (and space does not bend, which I take it to mean that light does not bend) as a massive object passes by or it passes by. I said, if you are looking at a ray of star-light and a massive object passes across it, the object blocks the light until the massive object just passes the ray. Then, if it speeds up the ray, it's too late to account for it's earlier arrival at the massive object, (I didn't say the rest of this but it follows) and it is no good speeding up c (!) on its journey to the viewer because the light from the massive object would have been speeded up by the object too. (If passing through gravity is supposed to speed it up).
2. Space bends. A volume of space is empty. It is nothing. In whichever direction you "point" it is is exactly the same. It cannot bend.
Space itself does not have to bend. There is another possibility. Yes, it is unproven, but with due respect to the board I cannot believe that space has been proven to bend.
Both experiment and observation show you to be wrong, both about the speed of light changing and about space bending.
General relativity not only predicts that space bends, it predicts exactly how much space bends. The quantitative predictions have been confirmed numerous times, the first being the Eddington observations in 1919. If the theory was wrong, and space did not bend, then the predictions of the theory would be disproved. Instead, the predictions of the theory EXACTLY matched the observed phenomena.
Since you can't understand it, you deny it happens. If you can't see it, it doesn't exist.
I admit I sound as if I am talking about the whole theories, but Penner had just made two statements and those are what I was referring to as theories (for star-light bending around a massive object)
1. Light speeds up (and space does not bend, which I take it to mean that light does not bend) as a massive object passes by or it passes by. I said, if you are looking at a ray of star-light and a massive object passes across it, the object blocks the light until the massive object just passes the ray. Then, if it speeds up the ray, it's too late to account for it's earlier arrival at the massive object, (I didn't say the rest of this but it follows) and it is no good speeding up c (!) on its journey to the viewer because the light from the massive object would have been speeded up by the object too. (If passing through gravity is supposed to speed it up).
2. Space bends. A volume of space is empty. It is nothing. In whichever direction you "point" it is is exactly the same. It cannot bend.
Space itself does not have to bend. There is another possibility. Yes, it is unproven, but with due respect to the board I cannot believe that space has been proven to bend.
Both experiment and observation show you to be wrong, both about the speed of light changing and about space bending.
General relativity not only predicts that space bends, it predicts exactly how much space bends. The quantitative predictions have been confirmed numerous times, the first being the Eddington observations in 1919. If the theory was wrong, and space did not bend, then the predictions of the theory would be disproved. Instead, the predictions of the theory EXACTLY matched the observed phenomena.
Since you can't understand it, you deny it happens. If you can't see it, it doesn't exist.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 22 2009, 04:28 PM)
Both experiment and observation show you to be wrong, both about the speed of light changing and about space bending.
General relativity not only predicts that space bends, it predicts exactly how much space bends. The quantitative predictions have been confirmed numerous times, the first being the Eddington observations in 1919. If the theory was wrong, and space did not bend, then the predictions of the theory would be disproved. Instead, the predictions of the theory EXACTLY matched the observed phenomena.
Since you can't understand it, you deny it happens. If you can't see it, it doesn't exist.
I know you are trying to be reasonable at this time but let me explain something.
I agree fully that General Relativity predicts precisely the anomaly of Mercury and Eddington's reported findings. Also, I agree that the predictions matched the observed phenomena.
This, I understand is science and I have no problem at all with it. In fact I am in awe of the mathematics that could define such tiny deviations so exquisitely.
It is only the reported interpretation that space must be the thing that bends. (There is nothing else, there, but space.) Well, actually there is something else there that could bend light.
That is my tiny point in all this. It is in figuring out how it might possibly work that I wrote the article on the web. Why not read the article and get it over with. (But please include the Hypothesis/Rationale part. It's one thing wrung out.)
It is quite true that I don't understand Einstein's math for the General Theory. I completely agree that it works beautifully, however. I am in awe of the man.
General relativity not only predicts that space bends, it predicts exactly how much space bends. The quantitative predictions have been confirmed numerous times, the first being the Eddington observations in 1919. If the theory was wrong, and space did not bend, then the predictions of the theory would be disproved. Instead, the predictions of the theory EXACTLY matched the observed phenomena.
Since you can't understand it, you deny it happens. If you can't see it, it doesn't exist.
I know you are trying to be reasonable at this time but let me explain something.
I agree fully that General Relativity predicts precisely the anomaly of Mercury and Eddington's reported findings. Also, I agree that the predictions matched the observed phenomena.
This, I understand is science and I have no problem at all with it. In fact I am in awe of the mathematics that could define such tiny deviations so exquisitely.
It is only the reported interpretation that space must be the thing that bends. (There is nothing else, there, but space.) Well, actually there is something else there that could bend light.
That is my tiny point in all this. It is in figuring out how it might possibly work that I wrote the article on the web. Why not read the article and get it over with. (But please include the Hypothesis/Rationale part. It's one thing wrung out.)
It is quite true that I don't understand Einstein's math for the General Theory. I completely agree that it works beautifully, however. I am in awe of the man.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 22 2009, 04:28 PM)
Both experiment and observation show you to be wrong, both about the speed of light changing and about space bending.
Since you can't understand it, you deny it happens.
OK ALEX,
So, you say that "c" speeds up (that was the "change" Penner and I referred to)
and that directionless space changes direction.
And that I can't understand it and so I deny it happens. That's correct, anyway.
Here's something to remember me by: (you may quote me)
Mathematics defines the relationship of the attributes that Man needs to understand Nature. It does not necessarily define the interactions that Nature uses to produce objects and events.
In there is the Heisenberg solution, the time dilation explanation and a clue to the basis of another explanation for Einstein's General Relativity. You're living on borrowed time (Newtonian) ALEX. If I can figure a 'fresh view of Nature' so can a scientist with a mind.
Since you can't understand it, you deny it happens.
OK ALEX,
So, you say that "c" speeds up (that was the "change" Penner and I referred to)
and that directionless space changes direction.
And that I can't understand it and so I deny it happens. That's correct, anyway.
Here's something to remember me by: (you may quote me)
Mathematics defines the relationship of the attributes that Man needs to understand Nature. It does not necessarily define the interactions that Nature uses to produce objects and events.
In there is the Heisenberg solution, the time dilation explanation and a clue to the basis of another explanation for Einstein's General Relativity. You're living on borrowed time (Newtonian) ALEX. If I can figure a 'fresh view of Nature' so can a scientist with a mind.
QUOTE
So, you say that "c" speeds up
No idiot.
I say, and have said many times, that c is constant in all reference frames.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So, you say that "c" speeds up |
No idiot.
I say, and have said many times, that c is constant in all reference frames.
And that I can't understand it and so I deny it happens. That's correct, anyway.
idiot
QUOTE
If I can figure a 'fresh view of Nature'...
You mean making up crap that does not reflect physical reality?
You're an ignorant twit.
Hi Titor here
You seem preoccupied by something that is a byproduct of somethng else
An effect caused by something else that you almost understand
Any ravings about 24 hours and how long it takes us to orbit the sun is purely cultural, if a effort to put an explanation behind what we see, put a meaning to time itself.
You need to look deeper , its not that easy or expedient
What happens to the measurement of time near very heavy objects, and what does this have to do with motion, you tell me
You seem preoccupied by something that is a byproduct of somethng else
An effect caused by something else that you almost understand
Any ravings about 24 hours and how long it takes us to orbit the sun is purely cultural, if a effort to put an explanation behind what we see, put a meaning to time itself.
You need to look deeper , its not that easy or expedient
What happens to the measurement of time near very heavy objects, and what does this have to do with motion, you tell me
Hi Titor here again
I really, the guy who is in love wth the "c" constant
One of the biggest equation errors of our time, lol
Let me tell you, "c" is just a big number, its not the speed of light, now that being the case, that sort of changes the way you view the whole e=mc2 thing.
Suddenly the speed of light is no longer a limiting factor, and many other things, like the connection between relatve physics and quantuum physics, they start to look alot closer.
I am sure that guys like you, who got it all out of what they read, rather than thinking about it logically, were the very ones who thought the sound barrier could not be broken
I really, the guy who is in love wth the "c" constant
One of the biggest equation errors of our time, lol
Let me tell you, "c" is just a big number, its not the speed of light, now that being the case, that sort of changes the way you view the whole e=mc2 thing.
Suddenly the speed of light is no longer a limiting factor, and many other things, like the connection between relatve physics and quantuum physics, they start to look alot closer.
I am sure that guys like you, who got it all out of what they read, rather than thinking about it logically, were the very ones who thought the sound barrier could not be broken
Another crank. We seem to be getting a flurry of them lately. I guess Silly Season has started a bit early. Chalk it up to global warming.
Hi Titor Again
Good to see you have such an open mind
The world is full of you
Good to see you have such an open mind
The world is full of you
QUOTE (titor+Jul 31 2009, 02:11 AM)
Hi Titor Again
Good to see you have such an open mind
The world is full of you
There's a difference between an open mind and an empty mind.
Good to see you have such an open mind
The world is full of you
There's a difference between an open mind and an empty mind.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.