To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Time is a man-made invention
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Physics > Physics General
Pages: 1, 2

kaneda
Pupamancur (an odd name for a disease) believes that time exists and presumably that a rocket cannot get to the Moon since it can only travel through space and not spacetime. So maybe they really have Tardis's at NASA?

So, cur, how about explaining how time really exists and showing why I deserve negative feedback? Or you can just stay in hiding.
kaneda
For any of those trying to score cheap points by demanding an instant answer to their dogma: Being in Thailand and 7 hours in front of the UK and 12-15 hours in front of the US, my answers may be some time in coming.
kaneda
As it's almost midnight here, I'll leave a question behind for anyone who looks. How can an object be accelerated to a fraction of light speed if such a course would cause it to slow down in time, then it should slow down in speed too, making it impossible to do. Or maybe you are only slowing down it's natural rate of change?
Pan
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 13 2006, 08:21 AM)
Pupamancur (an odd name for a disease) believes that time exists and presumably that a rocket cannot get to the Moon since it can only travel through space and not spacetime. So maybe they really have Tardis's at NASA?

So, cur, how about explaining how time really exists and showing why I deserve negative feedback? Or you can just stay in hiding.

Sooo... Everything happened at once and the laws of physics didn't exist before man invented the clock?

Obviously the rocket does travel through space time, because it isn't a Tardis and cannot travel through space independent of time nor visa versa.

I guess some "dogma" produces more practical results than others, like say that computer you're using...
amrit
Albert Einstein about time:
Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live." Time--the time that we know through clocks and calendars--was invented. http://www.britannica.com/clockworks/article.html

yes time is man invention
i wrote on this forum about 500 post
but still 99.999999 percent of people think me wrong

space-time is a math model into which we describe motion into a-temporal space
with clocks we measure duration of motion
clocks run into space only and not into time
universe is an a-temporal phenomena
time is a mind concept
kaneda
Pan. It is always now. The past is gone forever and at best a series of memories. The future is mere speculation of what is to come. What we call time is actually change.

The clock just helps us cope with everything around us. You can make them run faster or slower than usual and they affect nothing around them. They are merely a measuring instrument.

How does the rocket travel through spacetime? That is like saying we are all time travellers because we move forwards at 1 sec/sec. Except that is all we can do. Nothing can go back one single second and nothing can go forwards at 2 secs/sec. That is because time is not a dimension as your dogma and Dr Who claims.
Pan
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 14 2006, 09:15 AM)
Pan. It is always now. The past is gone forever and at best a series of memories. The future is mere speculation of what is to come. What we call time is actually change.

The clock just helps us cope with everything around us. You can make them run faster or slower than usual and they affect nothing around them. They are merely a measuring instrument.

How does the rocket travel through spacetime? That is like saying we are all time travellers because we move forwards at 1 sec/sec. Except that is all we can do. Nothing can go back one single second and nothing can go forwards at 2 secs/sec. That is because time is not a dimension as your dogma and Dr Who claims.

rolleyes.gif

Riiiight... Like I said, some "dogmas" are more useful than others, at least. Your newager bong-philosophy there being one of the more useless, while the "[my] dogma and Dr Who claims" has built modern society including the technology you're using to spread your crankage.
tikay
QUOTE (Pan+Dec 13 2006, 10:14 AM)
Sooo... Everything happened at once and the laws of physics didn't exist before man invented the clock?

Obviously the rocket does travel through space time, because it isn't a Tardis and cannot travel through space independent of time nor visa versa.

I guess some "dogma" produces more practical results than others, like say that computer you're using...

Can we say though that everything is not happening in a simultaneous fashion while the mind of man cannot grasp it for the very reason that without the false pretense of time and it's management then we will no longer feel need to thrive to advancement because we will feel there is no course if we are already there.
The veils of illusion have their purposes and when stripped away we see that they are both necessary and good as they are unrealistic and sentimental.

Why are things required to always fit into mans little box of cause and effect.
Why can they not just BE.....with no beginning or end. A mental need for constriction and rules plays nicely into the need for learning and growth of our "minds" & spirit/soul, without the time game we may find we are already the evolved. If we came here for growth, we would not be able to do that without man made references, such as time, a value and measure of change.

If time was meant to serve mans knowledge base, and cause an evolutionary trend, then is it really working? Can you (truly) tell if modern man/we are more advanced than the ancients, or if they have known in the far off past, things we cannot yet begin to recover again?

How hard is it to consider that time is a man made construct, that we merely need to put on these blinders to how it really works, in order to experience a planetary existence. That when we are transformed and metamorphosed ( upon so called dying to this life into the so-called future) we re-gain insight into why we use mathematical constructs to prosper and learn as well as discover and teach. Not to mention live and love the earth and it's points of light...and it's spirits.

Let me end with this thought, that if we are not existing with every other universe simultaneously...then will we create them when we discover them in time?
If we are creating the future from the past, instant by instant, particle by particle, are we building the current "right now" as a system, and is this system devoid of other possibilities such as a parallel (soul) existence at once? Are we as persons the only soul we actually realize, as we hurtle (and turn on this axis) through a vortex called time/change.

Dogma never works out ~ it always gets bested somehow.
The computer I work with is a purely magic box, it is infinitesimal in it's ability to help me "advance" or decide, act, speak up, and dream aloud...if it were just a mechanism/machine it would not, could not give so much peace and delight, to this person.
it connects me to you and links any mind to another mind...how incredible. It is as if the body might not even exist and a circuit is tapped between mere souls.
To me that is fairly magical, it asks for nothing, it gives me everything.

It is made of energy as is everything that is...a hologram that brings joy. Pretty cool when you think about how many people one may meet because of these lit'l giants.


tikay
QUOTE (amrit+Dec 13 2006, 01:28 PM)
Albert Einstein about time:
Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live." Time--the time that we know through clocks and calendars--was invented. http://www.britannica.com/clockworks/article.html

yes time is man invention
i wrote on this forum about 500 post
but still 99.999999 percent of people think me wrongspace-time is a math model into which we describe  motion into a-temporal space
with clocks we measure duration of motion
clocks run into space only and not into time
universe is an a-temporal phenomena
time is a mind concept

I have (constantly) agreed with you in my way darling amrit, I just cannot seem to grasp at this stage of development, every thing you speak about and having my own (probably ludacrious) way of saying similar things...I do my best to explain as I see things, in a simple fashion, because it is all that I have to put forth my explanations.
Want to fund a university education with an empahsis in physics and philosophy ? biggrin.gif
(joking) wink.gif

dont be so sure about those numbers, many people may be in a quiet agreement with you on the concept of time. How many do you feel want to risk (even careers) for breaking the mold of common thinkers.
tlocity
The reality of time.

Four strobe lights L1, L2, L3, and L4 of the same design are synchronized to flash at the same time. The four lights and observer M1 are placed at point (A). Two of the lights L1 and L2 are then moved an equal distance from point (A). L1 and L2 should also be moved in the same manner to prevent a difference in flash rate that could be cause by the movement or rate of movement. If the lights are moved correctly observer M1 still at point A will see lights L1 and L2 flash at the same time. Lights L1 and L2 may move around point A at an equal distance forming a circle of simultaneity. This may be repeated to produce an infinite number of concentric circles. It may then be seen that any action anywhere on the same circle is simultaneous.

If we now move to a new location and repeat the experiment, we will produce another set of concentric circles of simultaneity. The second set of concentric circles will overlap the first set of concentric circles. If any circle of simultaneity intersects another circle of simultaneity, both circles must be simultaneous. It is therefore shown that all locations in space are simultaneous.

This experiment is supported by observation of distant objects in the universe. Using the Big Bang model, all objects in the universe started out at the same point, the Big Bang, and have moved outward. Measurements of distant objects indicate that all objects in the universe are at any point in time the same “time distance” from the Big Bang. If this were not so then the distance measurements indicated by redshift and those of other methods would not agree.

The very fact that we are able to determine the “time distance” to the Big Bang requires that time is a physical reality. Anything you can measure with respect to any physical reality is real.

Remember to deny reality is a mental disorder. If you have no answer to this observation and you insist that time is not real then you either are not able to understand this observation or you have a mental disorder. If you do not understand please let me know and I will go over it in more detail.
Pan
wacko.gif

Okay crazies, time is merely an illusion, as is space. We're all in a single dimensionless point right now and that's all.

Have fun puff puff puffing your way to an education here (brought to you by the dogma that time exists)!
4Dguy


While there is life there is time.
Nick
How does mass density slow the passage of time around itself?
*vanadesse
QUOTE (Nick+Dec 14 2006, 11:55 PM)
How does mass density slow the passage of time around itself?

It warps space-time. Remember the countless posts this has been explained to you in?
kaneda
pan. Just because you don't know the answer, no need to rant. As I have said, time is a man made measurement which helps us cope with the Universe around us. Thermometers to give another example help us to cope too but no one talks of spacethermometer or spaceheat as they do spacetime. And thermometers do not occupy another dimension either.

When you learn a little, you can apologise for your ignorant remark.

kaneda
Pan. How about proving to us that time exists by going one week into the future and giving us next week's lottery numbers?

Or you could go into the past and answer a question before it is even asked?
kaneda
4Dguy. Any form of change produces the phenomena we call time.
kaneda
vanadesse. Does that mean that if I have an identical twin and he goes to live on a 2G planet for ten years, then comes back to Earth, he will now be younger than me?

If someone travels fast enough that time slows for him, why doesn't he slow down in speed? This is a paradox.
kaneda
Nick. I would think sufficient mass would affect the atoms themselves so causing them to process slower, so causing them to go through chemical reactions slower, etc. This would slow down the pace of change on a larger scale.

The problem with time dialation is that we know it works on atomic clocks but what else does it work on? Anything?

If this just an effect of speed (or gravity/acceleration)affecting the transition phase of cesium? Is it affecting the atoms themselves after they have been heated to 90.C and made into a beam?

The number of control experiemts to check this out is......?

That is what is wrong with parts of science nowadays. Something works on paper or in a lab so it must work exactly the same across a Universe. Rubbish! Only a text book quoter like zorro1 would believe that, and we all know how smart he is......not.
rpenner
QUOTE
Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.
Wikipedia: Second
http://www.bipm.fr/en/si/si_brochure/chapt...2-1/second.html

This definition allows us to talk about seconds in terms of a well-defined physical process. Man didn't make atoms, so the period of their raditions are functions of the universe, not Man.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.
Wikipedia: Second
http://www.bipm.fr/en/si/si_brochure/chapt...2-1/second.html

This definition allows us to talk about seconds in terms of a well-defined physical process. Man didn't make atoms, so the period of their raditions are functions of the universe, not Man.

Two distinct views exist on the meaning of time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. This is the realist view, to which Sir Isaac Newton [1] subscribed, in which time itself is something that can be measured.

A contrasting view is that time is part of the fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which we sequence events, quantify the duration of events and the intervals between them, and compare the motions of objects. In this view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows", that objects "move through", or that is a "container" for events. This view is in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[2] and Immanuel Kant,[3][4] in which time, rather than being an objective thing to be measured, is part of the mental measuring system.

In 5th century BC Greece, Antiphon the Sophist, in a fragment preserved from his chief work Truth held that: "Time is not a reality (hupostasis), but a concept (noêma) or a measure (metron)." Similarly, Parmenides believed that time, motion, and change were illusions, leading to Zeno's paradoxes (Zeno was a follower of Parmenides).

Ralph Waldo Emerson considers time as presentness, where past and future are but our present projections (of our memory, hope, etc.). For Emerson, time needs a qualitative measurement rather than a quantitative one.[citation needed]

Writers such as J. M. E. McTaggart in his 1908 The Unreality of Time have argued that time is an illusion (see also The flow of time).
Wikipedia: Time

So, why is time called a "dimension?" That's just a word that says that two events cannot be uniquely specified by just 3 spacial coordinates. In Einstein's space-time, time is tightly coupled space, although clearly distinct from the spacial dimensions. Minkowski (or was it Poincare?) classified the relations between two events A and B as one of 6 possible conditions. A listing of these helps show that time is distinct from space.
  • The two events happen at the same time and the same place. All observers will agree that they happened together.
  • Event A and B happened in two different places, and it is impossible to get a signal from A to B or B to A even at lightspeed. Certain observers will think these two events happened at the same time (simultaneously) but all will say that they happened in different places.
  • Event B happens on ray of light sent out from A. All observers will agree that B happens after A and that only a lightspeed signal could get from A to B.
  • B happens on a possible future world line from A -- that is it is possible that a massive particle got from A to B. All observers will agree that B happens after A.
  • Event A happens on ray of light sent out from B. All observers will agree that A happens after B and that only a lightspeed signal could get from B to A.
  • A happens on a possible future world line from B -- that is it is possible that a massive particle got from B to A. All observers will agree that A happens after B.
In Newtonian absolute time, there are only four possibilities:
  • The two events happen at the same time and the same place. All observers will agree that they happened together.
  • Event A and B happened in two different places and all observers will think these two events happened at the same time.
  • B happens on a possible future world line from A -- that is it is possible that a massive particle got from A to B. All observers will agree that B happens after A.
  • A happens on a possible future world line from B -- that is it is possible that a massive particle got from B to A. All observers will agree that A happens after B.
If there was no time, then only spacial coordinates would matter, so all that you could say about events A and B is:
  • The two events happen at the same place. All observers will agree that they happened together.
  • Events A and B happened in two different places. If observers say A happens first, this must only be in their head, so the prediction is an equal number of people will think B happened first.
A study of history teachers indicate the predictions of the no-time model of events are not found. A statistically significant number of history teachers believe that World War I happened before World War II. A significant number of doctors have written completely original papers which describe patients being born before dying of old age.

As one wit had it: "Time is what keeps everything from happening at once."
*vanadesse
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 15 2006, 02:30 AM)
vanadesse. Does that mean that if I have an identical twin and he goes to live on a 2G planet for ten years, then comes back to Earth, he will now be younger than me?

Exactly.

QUOTE
If someone travels fast enough that time slows for him, why doesn't he slow down in speed? This is a paradox.

No it's not. For the person moving, time is going at the same rate. It is only relative to someone else that his time has slowed down. Everyone experiences time at the same rate. One second for me is the same as one second for you and the same as one second for a guy in a spaceship. But if you look at the guy in the spaceship, his second is actually longer than yours. If he is moving at 1000 miles per hour, one hour is still the same to him, so 1000 miles per hour means the same thing. That's why it's called special relativity.

Sorry, I'm very tired right now, I hope that was coherent... mellow.gif
4Dguy
kaneda,

QUOTE
4Dguy. Any form of change produces the phenomena we call time.


While there is life there is time. Time is an abstract term we use to determine change. Change would happen without life.
kaneda
rpenner. Not the wikipedia....the thinking man's alternative to asking a man in the pub.

So at random, we picked a number 9,192,631,770 and said that we will count that many periods of radiation, and we'll call that unit of time a second? Doh! There are also measurements for a metre, a kilogramme, and so on. Your point is?


As I said, a man made invention. It helps us calculate things, like temperature does. Without a temperature scale, things would be: freezing cold, very cold, cold, lukewarm, hot and very hot. But we don't talk about travelling through spacetemperature. Or the dimension of temperature.

Time is a mathematical concept for working out what has happened and what may happen. It has no physical existence, unlike temperature.
tikay
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 15 2006, 12:18 AM)
As I have said, time is a man made measurement which helps us cope with the Universe around us.

Clever fellow, complete respect here.
tikay
QUOTE (rpenner+Dec 15 2006, 01:12 AM)


Wikipedia: Time


Two distinct views exist on the meaning of time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. This is the realist view, to which Sir Isaac Newton [1] subscribed, in which time itself is something that can be measured.

A contrasting view is that time is part of the fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which we sequence events, quantify the duration of events and the intervals between them, and compare the motions of objects. In this view, time does not refer to any kind of entity that "flows", that objects "move through", or that is a "container" for events. This view is in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[2] and Immanuel Kant,[3][4] in which time, rather than being an objective thing to be measured, is part of the mental measuring system.

In 5th century BC Greece, Antiphon the Sophist, in a fragment preserved from his chief work Truth held that: "Time is not a reality (hupostasis), but a concept (noêma) or a measure (metron)." Similarly, Parmenides believed that time, motion, and change were illusions, leading to Zeno's paradoxes (Zeno was a follower of Parmenides).

Ralph Waldo Emerson considers time as presentness, where past and future are but our present projections (of our memory, hope, etc.). For Emerson, time needs a qualitative measurement rather than a quantitative one.[citation needed]

Writers such as J. M. E. McTaggart in his 1908 The Unreality of Time have argued that time is an illusion (see also The flow of time).




~so, I find this dual function of "time" incredibly workable myself, and if the mind's in trouble blending the two ideas, as one and whipping into a glorious frothy paradigm, i feel for them, it's really refreshing.... me thinks, so thanks for this !(wikipedia moment) biggrin.gif
kaneda
vanadesse. Do we actually have any evidence of time dilation apart from atomic clocks? Do we know that conditions and measurements for the heated stream of cesium atoms remain exactly the same when we move them about? (ie: put a clock on a barrow and walk around town for a few hours with it and check it against a stationary clock when you return.)

What you are quoting is theory and has never been proved. We are not streams of heated cesium atoms measured by microwaves. The fact that all material experiences resistence when travelling at very great speeds rather than just running into a wall at almost light speed suggests that atoms themselves have a built in resistence of some kind. If you have something moving at virtually lightspeed, an oscillation, orbit, whatever and as it starts moving ever faster, it is forced to slow down (ie: call it C, minus a movement of 50,000 mps means it can now only move at 136,282 mps, as the light barrier brakes it, so it actually shortens in the direction of travel.)


If you are travelling through spacetime at say 180,000 mps, you are experiencing a much slower rate of time. Yet you still continue to travel through spaceTIME at the same rate. If spacetime actually existed outside of a maths calculation, why would you not slow down since you experience the time element of spacetime much more slowly?


I know what you mean about coherence. It is not always easy to put some concepts you know about into words understandable to another.
Pan
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 16 2006, 08:46 AM)
rpenner. Not the wikipedia....the thinking man's alternative to asking a man in the pub.

So at random, we picked a number 9,192,631,770 and said that we will count that many periods of radiation, and we'll call that unit of time a second? Doh! There are also measurements for a metre, a kilogramme, and so on. Your point is?


As I said, a man made invention. It helps us calculate things, like temperature does. Without a temperature scale, things would be: freezing cold, very cold, cold, lukewarm, hot and very hot. But we don't talk about travelling through spacetemperature. Or the dimension of temperature.

Time is a mathematical concept for working out what has happened and what may happen. It has no physical existence, unlike temperature.

well, it seems you don't understand temperature either.

By your argument, there is no such thing as distance. It is merely a man made concept to measure space, as mass and electric charge too, yeah?

You are equating time with the means to measuring time. If time didn't exist, we wouldn't be able to measure it in innumerable ways, now would we. Time does exist and is an inescapable part of the universe we live in. You DO travel trough space-time.

And again, you can keep taking a hit and declaring otherwise, but that will not amount to anything but this steaming heap of a crank's thread, whilst folks who treat time as a real thing push science and technology along.

Pan
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 16 2006, 09:23 AM)
vanadesse. Do we actually have any evidence of time dilation apart from atomic clocks? Do we know that conditions and measurements for the heated stream of cesium atoms remain exactly the same when we move them about? (ie: put a clock on a barrow and walk around town for a few hours with it and check it against a stationary clock when you return.)

What you are quoting is theory and has never been proved. We are not streams of heated cesium atoms measured by microwaves. The fact that all material experiences resistence when travelling at very great speeds rather than just running into a wall at almost light speed suggests that atoms themselves have a built in resistence of some kind. If you have something moving at virtually lightspeed, an oscillation, orbit, whatever and as it starts moving ever faster, it is forced to slow down (ie: call it C, minus a movement of 50,000 mps means it can now only move at 136,282 mps, as the light barrier brakes it, so it actually shortens in the direction of travel.)


If you are travelling through spacetime at say 180,000 mps, you are experiencing a much slower rate of time. Yet you still continue to travel through spaceTIME at the same rate. If spacetime actually existed outside of a maths calculation, why would you not slow down since you experience the time element of spacetime much more slowly?


I know what you mean about coherence. It is not always easy to put some concepts you know about into words understandable to another.

You're ridiculous. What ego you must have to come on here and make these arguments armed with naught but your confidence that your own ignorance must be right.

Refute everything
hereand then get back to us about how it's never been proved.

Good god.
*vanadesse
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 16 2006, 04:23 AM)
vanadesse. Do we actually have any evidence of time dilation apart from atomic clocks? Do we know that conditions and measurements for the heated stream of cesium atoms remain exactly the same when we move them about? (ie: put a clock on a barrow and walk around town for a few hours with it and check it against a stationary clock when you return.)

What you are quoting is theory and has never been proved.

I think Pan covered this.
QUOTE
We are not streams of heated cesium atoms measured by microwaves. The fact that all material experiences resistence when travelling at very great speeds rather than just running into a wall at almost light speed suggests that atoms themselves have a built in resistence of some kind. If you have something moving at virtually lightspeed, an oscillation, orbit, whatever and as it starts moving ever faster, it is forced to slow down (ie: call it C, minus a movement of 50,000 mps means it can now only move at 136,282 mps, as the light barrier brakes it, so it actually shortens in the direction of travel.)

I don't quite understand what you mean here - are you saying that it becomes harder and harder to accelerate mass when it is traveling very fast? This is true of course. Since E=mc^2, as the mass starts moving faster it gains energy, which is equal to mass. It requires more energy to accelerate a higher amount of mass. So it becomes harder and harder to get it to move faster. At the speed of light, the mass becomes infinite, so therefore it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it to that point, which is why it is impossible. The light barrier isn't like an actual barrier, it is like an ideal that you can never reach, no matter how much energy you put into it. It doesn't slow down anything.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
We are not streams of heated cesium atoms measured by microwaves. The fact that all material experiences resistence when travelling at very great speeds rather than just running into a wall at almost light speed suggests that atoms themselves have a built in resistence of some kind. If you have something moving at virtually lightspeed, an oscillation, orbit, whatever and as it starts moving ever faster, it is forced to slow down (ie: call it C, minus a movement of 50,000 mps means it can now only move at 136,282 mps, as the light barrier brakes it, so it actually shortens in the direction of travel.)

I don't quite understand what you mean here - are you saying that it becomes harder and harder to accelerate mass when it is traveling very fast? This is true of course. Since E=mc^2, as the mass starts moving faster it gains energy, which is equal to mass. It requires more energy to accelerate a higher amount of mass. So it becomes harder and harder to get it to move faster. At the speed of light, the mass becomes infinite, so therefore it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it to that point, which is why it is impossible. The light barrier isn't like an actual barrier, it is like an ideal that you can never reach, no matter how much energy you put into it. It doesn't slow down anything.
If you are travelling through spacetime at say 180,000 mps, you are experiencing a much slower rate of time.

(You mean space, not spacetime)
No, you always experience time at the same rate. One second to you will always be one second. It is just that time has slowed relative to someone stationary.
QUOTE
Yet you still continue to travel through spaceTIME at the same rate.

Right.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Yet you still continue to travel through spaceTIME at the same rate.

Right.
If spacetime actually existed outside of a maths calculation, why would you not slow down since you experience the time element of spacetime much more slowly?

Again, you're not experiencing time slowly. You experience everything at the same rate; everything slows down proportionately.
So everything moves at approximately 186,000 mph through spacetime, right? So say you're moving at 186,000 mph through space. So you're moving 6,000 mph through time. But that's only you. You're the only one who is moving through time at a slower rate. Time doesn't slow for anyone else, just for you. But everyone else can still see that you're moving at 186,000 mph through space. So you are still moving at 186,000 mph.
QUOTE
I know what you mean about coherence. It is not always easy to put some concepts you know about into words understandable to another.

So true.

smile.gif
kaneda
Poor poor pan. A scientific creationist who believes every word in a text book is infallibly right from the first to the last. I bet you even believe in the big bang.


Distance, temperature, etc are all observably there. Time is not since it is always NOW. Even someone with your intellect is capable of remembering yesterday and thinking about tomorrow but they are only in your mind. Distance you can see for yourself, and traverse as you wish. Temperature you can experience and to some extent control because it is real. Time isn't.


If you jump up in the air and go through spacetime, do you reverse spacetime when you fall back to earth again? If not, explain why not. Explain how I travel through spacetime. If all you can supply is more insults, I'll take that as an admission that I am right.


As I have tried to explain to you (and failed. You are not dad1 in another disguise, are you?), the measurement of time is used to cope with the world and universe around us. I have never denied that.
kaneda
Poor poor pan. I have noticed that you never actually answer any questions but just quote dogma which I have already dismissed and merely give insults in reply. I think you must be dad1 under another name.


Pan in denial.
kaneda
vanadesse. Testing gravity using atomic clocks can give false results in that a quantity of heated cesium atoms are measure going up and coming down. What happens to those cesium atoms when you increase the G-force on them?

An atomic clock is not an inert structure and is affected by any movement.
kaneda
vanadesse. What is the resistence to travelling fast? Why don't we just experience it only at virtually light speed?

Actually that is only theory. We know it works on atomic clocks but that could be due to their internal workings. We have no evidence that people experience time slower. But even if they do, that could be down to electro-chemical reactions in the mind and body slowing down as they too are affected by proximity to the light barrier. If this is so, then there may be a point at which body and mental processes break down so the person dies for no other reason the speed they are travelling at.


If time slows as objects accelerate towards light speed, what about objects which travel at light speed, photons? Are they frozen in a moment of time forever?
rpenner
If there are no "events" then I would imagine that the people who say there is time would be in a lot of trouble to demonstrate it. Some metaphysics makes the claim that there are no events because there is no reality. But the non-existence of reality is a difficult proposition to prove. What we call "reality" is apparently predictable, which argues that what we call "reality" is subject to some sort of rules, and the study of this "reality" is called physics.

But I submit that there are "events" -- the very act of posting this post is an "event." I also point that there are events that all observers agree that are temporally arranged. A good counter example to this would be to post your reply to my letter in a way that all observers agree it happened "before" the posting of this message.

My Earlier post was meant to argue that the concept of time follows naturally from the fact that certain relations exist between any two events A and B.
QUOTE (rpenner+Dec 15 2006, 08:12 AM)
So, why is time called a "dimension?" That's just a word that says that two events cannot be uniquely specified by just 3 spacial coordinates. In Einstein's space-time, time is tightly coupled space, although clearly distinct from the spacial dimensions. Minkowski (or was it Poincare?) classified the relations between two events A and B as one of 6 possible conditions. A listing of these helps show that time is distinct from space.

  • The two events happen at the same time and the same place. All observers will agree that they happened together.
  • Event A and B happened in two different places, and it is impossible to get a signal from A to B or B to A even at lightspeed. Certain observers will think these two events happened at the same time (simultaneously) but all will say that they happened in different places.
  • Event B happens on ray of light sent out from A. All observers will agree that B happens after A and that only a lightspeed signal could get from A to B.
  • B happens on a possible future world line from A -- that is it is possible that a massive particle got from A to B. All observers will agree that B happens after A.
  • Event A happens on ray of light sent out from B. All observers will agree that A happens after B and that only a lightspeed signal could get from B to A.
  • A happens on a possible future world line from B -- that is it is possible that a massive particle got from B to A. All observers will agree that A happens after B.
In Newtonian absolute time, there are only four possibilities:

  • The two events happen at the same time and the same place. All observers will agree that they happened together.
  • Event A and B happened in two different places and all observers will think these two events happened at the same time.
  • B happens on a possible future world line from A -- that is it is possible that a massive particle got from A to B. All observers will agree that B happens after A.
  • A happens on a possible future world line from B -- that is it is possible that a massive particle got from B to A. All observers will agree that A happens after B.
If there was no time, then only spacial coordinates would matter, so all that you could say about events A and B is:

  • The two events happen at the same place. All observers will agree that they happened together.
  • Events A and B happened in two different places. If observers say A happens first, this must only be in their head, so the prediction is an equal number of people will think B happened first.
A study of history teachers indicate the predictions of the no-time model of events are not found. A statistically significant number of history teachers believe that World War I happened before World War II. A significant number of doctors have written completely original papers which describe patients being born before dying of old age.

As one wit had it: "Time is what keeps everything from happening at once."
Thus these three "space time" theories correspond to a theory of topology about how events A and B can be causally related. We see that these relations have a transitive relation. If A and B are casually connected A->B and B and C are casually connected, B->C, then it follows A->C (for all three of these topologies, although the third is trivial).

Then, from the topologies themselves, the concept of time naturally follows as an equivalence class of casual connection. In topology 1, it is an observer-dependent equivalence class (relative time). In topology 2, it is an observer-independent equivalence class (absolute time, but not necessarily with an origin). In topology 3, it is an equivalence class with only 1 member (no time).

So while the second, or indeed the concept of time might be a synthetic concept, it is a very natural concept from the topology of the universe's events. Numerous natural systems exist which are periodic -- indeed the light from the distant parts of the universe indicate that the periodic behavior of atoms in the distant past is exceedingly similar to their behavior today, which suggests that time is an intrinsic symmetry of the universe. Indeed, without this time symmetry to the laws of the universe, we have no basis to believe in the conservation of energy.
*vanadesse
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 17 2006, 06:42 AM)
Poor poor pan. A scientific creationist who believes every word in a text book is infallibly right from the first to the last. I bet you even believe in the big bang.




As I have tried to explain to you (and failed. You are not dad1 in another disguise, are you?), the measurement of time is used to cope with the world and universe around us. I have never denied that.

"Scientific creationist", now there's something you don't hear every day.
QUOTE
If you jump up in the air and go through spacetime, do you reverse spacetime when you fall back to earth again? If not, explain why not. Explain how I travel through spacetime. If all you can supply is more insults, I'll take that as an admission that I am right.

First of all, note the irony in that last sentence...
Second, re your first question, no. When you move through space-time, you are moving forward in time. That means you can't go backwards in space-time. It's the same thing as your "NOW" theory, just with actual science incorporated. Sort of. Not really. But anyway.
Space-time is four dimensional. So if you are completely at rest in space, you are still moving through time. Imagine a giant loaf of bread. Each slice represents one minute. So say you're a raisin. In each slice, if you're not moving through space, the raisin would be in the same place. If you look at the loaf of bread as a whole, you would be all those raisins squished together into a line. If you are moving in space, the line would be wavy. Get it?
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
If you jump up in the air and go through spacetime, do you reverse spacetime when you fall back to earth again? If not, explain why not. Explain how I travel through spacetime. If all you can supply is more insults, I'll take that as an admission that I am right.

First of all, note the irony in that last sentence...
Second, re your first question, no. When you move through space-time, you are moving forward in time. That means you can't go backwards in space-time. It's the same thing as your "NOW" theory, just with actual science incorporated. Sort of. Not really. But anyway.
Space-time is four dimensional. So if you are completely at rest in space, you are still moving through time. Imagine a giant loaf of bread. Each slice represents one minute. So say you're a raisin. In each slice, if you're not moving through space, the raisin would be in the same place. If you look at the loaf of bread as a whole, you would be all those raisins squished together into a line. If you are moving in space, the line would be wavy. Get it?
vanadesse. Testing gravity using atomic clocks can give false results in that a quantity of heated cesium atoms are measure going up and coming down. What happens to those cesium atoms when you increase the G-force on them?

An atomic clock is not an inert structure and is affected by any movement.

Remember that link that Pan posted? Look up some of those.
QUOTE
vanadesse. What is the resistence to travelling fast? Why don't we just experience it only at virtually light speed?

Read my other post again, where I explained this to you.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
vanadesse. What is the resistence to travelling fast? Why don't we just experience it only at virtually light speed?

Read my other post again, where I explained this to you.


Actually that is only theory. We know it works on atomic clocks but that could be due to their internal workings. We have no evidence that people experience time slower. But even if they do, that could be down to electro-chemical reactions in the mind and body slowing down as they too are affected by proximity to the light barrier. If this is so, then there may be a point at which body and mental processes break down so the person dies for no other reason the speed they are travelling at.

The light barrier isn't a barrier like you are thinking of. You do realize that saying that chemical reactions are slower when you move close to the speed of light is the EXACT same thing as time slowing down? Except that there is no reason for chemical reactions to slow down because they are "affected by proximity to the light barrier". If you have a reason, please do tell.
QUOTE
If time slows as objects accelerate towards light speed, what about objects which travel at light speed, photons? Are they frozen in a moment of time forever?

Exactly. You finally understand something!
Nick
QUOTE (*vanadesse+Dec 18 2006, 02:56 AM)
Exactly. You finally understand something!

LIGHT'S CLOCK IS THE FASTEST TIME.
kaneda
rpenner. You miss the point. Time as some call it is merely change of some kind. It does not exist as a seperate dimension any more than boiling a pot of water does. It is not reversible. You can predict the future, but any number of X factors can happen, changing it entirely.

Yes, as I said, "time" helps us cope with the world around us. Animals get by without this concept because they lead less complicated lives. Your examples are just examples of maths. In the real world it is NOW and you can remember or try and predict certain A and B events but that is still only maths.

The distant past merely demonstrates that what happened can still happen, that the laws of the universe have not changed. The past, even one second ago is gone forever.

I know I haven't explained this well but there is a chimp's tea party here at present as the local (Thai) kids jabber and screech at each other as they play computer games (they seem to finish school at 2pm-it's now 3:42pm).
kaneda
vanadesse. I have met too many people on science boards who do not stray one nanometre from accepted theory. This is OK when you are talking about everyday stuff that we all know works, but not with the big bang, black holes, etc which we cannot be sure of. Basically, such people are a total waste of time because they are merely quoting what is in text books and on science internet sites instead of answering questions.


Some people merely say: you're wrong, and then add their choice of insults. A six year old kid could do that so they too are a waste of time because it requires no ability to understand the subject.


So you're saying space AND time, with time being a totally seperate dimension (ie: I am travelling through time at 1 sec/sec whether I travel 100 yards or 100 miles?) What is the point of calling it spacetime since most times people talk of space, and if they mean time, then they will talk about movements in time. They are seperate.


Your example merely gives a mathematical extrapolation. Maths as I said and not the real world. At any point, that raisin is stationary in now and there is no dimension of time.

I know about what Pan posted. Some people believe that because you do not believe in a set theory, that means you do not know about it.

E=MC2 here is only kinetic to potential energy if you actually come into contact with something. An object is expending the energy as fast as it is ganing it in motion. Air resistance aside, THRUST ONE at 1 mph and moving at 600 mph weighed exactly the same. Only on impact would there have been a difference.

The maximum possible speed is slowing down, soon below a speed at which must molecules collide together. Movements of all kind (heat) will slow down too so chemical reactions cannot take place:

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

How can a photon, a wave, change it's wavelength if frozen in time? "If you have a reason, please do tell". Show me you do understand something.
kaneda
Nick. According to QFT (Quantum Fairy Tales), space can expand at 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the speed of light. But only when it has to, to fit into some crackpot theory.
*vanadesse
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 18 2006, 04:23 AM)
vanadesse. I have met too many people on science boards who do not stray one nanometre from accepted theory. This is OK when you are talking about everyday stuff that we all know works, but not with the big bang, black holes, etc which we cannot be sure of. Basically, such people are a total waste of time because they are merely quoting what is in text books and on science internet sites instead of answering questions.

...Except when the answer to the question is in the text books. If someone asks a question, you assume that they want the generally-known answer, or at least a logical one that many intelligent physicists have figured out by looking at experiment results and observations. If they want a random, speculative answer from someone who doesn't actually understand physics, they should ask for it specifically.
QUOTE
So you're saying space AND time, with time being a totally seperate dimension (ie: I am travelling through time at 1 sec/sec whether I travel 100 yards or 100 miles?) What is the point of calling it spacetime since most times people talk of space, and if they mean time, then they will talk about movements in time. They are seperate.

They are connected by the speed of light. Everyone, and probably all matter, moves through space-time at the speed of light. The effects of this come into play in general relativity and special relativity. They are separate dimensions, but they do effect each other. The faster you move through time, the slower you move through space, and vice versa.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
So you're saying space AND time, with time being a totally seperate dimension (ie: I am travelling through time at 1 sec/sec whether I travel 100 yards or 100 miles?) What is the point of calling it spacetime since most times people talk of space, and if they mean time, then they will talk about movements in time. They are seperate.

They are connected by the speed of light. Everyone, and probably all matter, moves through space-time at the speed of light. The effects of this come into play in general relativity and special relativity. They are separate dimensions, but they do effect each other. The faster you move through time, the slower you move through space, and vice versa.

Your example merely gives a mathematical extrapolation. Maths as I said and not the real world. At any point, that raisin is stationary in now and there is no dimension of time.

According to the raisin. But if you look at the big picture, the universe is really a collection of "nows" that combine to form a higher-dimensional picture. We can only see three dimensions; that does not mean that the fourth does not exist. Our brains are limited - we can not picture four dimensions, so we can't visualize the dimension of time except in metaphors. But physics is concerned in what really is, not just what one person sees.
QUOTE
I know about what Pan posted. Some people believe that because you do not believe in a set theory, that means you do not know about it.

So I am curious, can you explain time dilation in mainstream physics? Can you explain special relativity? Not even in detail, just the basics. Also, looking at your latest post to Nick, can you explain Quantum Field Theory?
Knowing about something is not the same as actually understanding it.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I know about what Pan posted. Some people believe that because you do not believe in a set theory, that means you do not know about it.

So I am curious, can you explain time dilation in mainstream physics? Can you explain special relativity? Not even in detail, just the basics. Also, looking at your latest post to Nick, can you explain Quantum Field Theory?
Knowing about something is not the same as actually understanding it.
E=MC2 here is only kinetic to potential energy if you actually come into contact with something. An object is expending the energy as fast as it is ganing it in motion. Air resistance aside, THRUST ONE at 1 mph and moving at 600 mph weighed exactly the same. Only on impact would there have been a difference.

The effect it has on impact is the point - it is how you can tell the difference. Energy and mass are the same thing, so if you throw two objects of the same mass at different speeds and they have different effects on impact, they have gained energy and therefore mass.
QUOTE
The maximum possible speed is slowing down, soon below a speed at which must molecules collide together. Movements of all kind (heat) will slow down too so chemical reactions cannot take place:

Why? Why do they slow down I mean? We are moving at thousands of miles per hour right now; does that mean that the chemical reactions are slower? If we suddenly stopped moving completely, would the chemical reactions suddenly move thousands of times faster, so we would be able to think thousands of times faster?
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The maximum possible speed is slowing down, soon below a speed at which must molecules collide together. Movements of all kind (heat) will slow down too so chemical reactions cannot take place:

Why? Why do they slow down I mean? We are moving at thousands of miles per hour right now; does that mean that the chemical reactions are slower? If we suddenly stopped moving completely, would the chemical reactions suddenly move thousands of times faster, so we would be able to think thousands of times faster?
How can a photon, a wave, change it's wavelength if frozen in time? "If you have a reason, please do tell".

Photons aren't "frozen in time", they just don't experience time, if you can understand that. To us, it appears as if it is traveling through time. Again, what should be clear to you by now is that what we see isn't necessarily true. Anyway, it's properties can change; the light just doesn't experience the change. It's as if the photon's whole lifetime happened in an infinitesimally small amount of time. To a photon, it takes no time at all to travel any distance.
QUOTE
Show me you do understand something.

Right back atcha.
kaneda
vanadesse. An old point I meant to answer. How do we know heavy gravity slows down time?

Atomic clocks work on measuring heated cesium atoms going up and then measuring them going down again. So on a 2G planet, I throw a ball into the air and it doesn't go up as high as on a 1G planet, and it comes down faster. Wow! Time dilation in action.
kaneda
vanadesse. This is a debating forum. Why should anyone come here for a pat answer from a text book when they can use a search engine to find it themselves?

But didn't space originally inflate at 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the speed of light? Hasn't it been suggested that beyond our present view, where light has had insufficient time to reach us that space may be expanding far faster than light? This suggests that space is in no way connected to light speed. Unless Quantum Fairy Tales are wrong, that is. Would space go back through time if it passes the light barrier?

You are still talking mathworld. It is now. It always has been. How can there be a dimension of time? Time is purely one way. It cannot be accelerated. We know things are braked as they accelerate and that is nothing to do with time slowing down but the light barrier.

Rather than going through the lot just to please you, you tell me what you want to know. I spent several years on another board arguing such stuff. It produced some real ignorance when people where asked to question there almost religiously held beliefs, and all they can do is just quote text book answers back, even when they were shown flawed.

E=MC2 is the energy produced from the annihilation of matter. Energy normally travels at light speed. Matter can't. Energy is not matter or mass. I have a cable. I then put several million volts through it at high amperage. Has that cable now become heavier?

We are talking near light speed. I don't know why you are blathering on about our present relatively stationary speeds.

Evidence for this stuff about photons is....? QFT? If photons came in only one type and nothing ever changed them, I might think there was something in it but no. So what happens when you use a BEC to slow photons to a stop? Do they die of old age suddenly?
rpenner
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 18 2006, 08:43 AM)
rpenner. You miss the point.

If physical events do occur, and there is a physicality to the concept of cause-and-effect, then it is possible to construct a mathematical model of cause-and-effect arrows connecting events. This point can be contradicted by showing events (Eclipses, births, deaths, telephones ringing, etc) do not happen or proving that events for the most part have no causes.

Given that a network of causality exists, it is natural to determine the the topology of the network. Newtonian physics gives one answer, SR gives another answer, QFT gives a subtlely different answer which is substantially the same as SR. I have attempted to provide a model of the "there is no time" topology. Please feel free to describe your own concept of how causality co-exists with the "there is no time" idea.

Now that we have multiple models, it is simple experimental work to test the rightness or wrongness of each model with a comparison with the universe. I have demonstrated that my bare-bones "there is no time" topology is ruled out. Again, if you have a better model of the the "there is no time" idea, you are welcome to enlighten us and demonstrate its features.

The key difference of the Newtonian and the Relativistic models is that signals in the Relativistic model cannot spread faster than the speed of light. The key difference of the "no time" topology is that the others have a concept of future and past. Finally, the list is not exhaustive. If you introduce a massive, infinite spinning cylinder in GR some closed loops of arrows are alleged possible. "Time machines" of the HG Wells type also introduce closed loops of arrows.

Finally, for any of the models except the "no time" model, you can create distinct equivalence classes for events based on the arrow model. These arrow relation induces a topology on the equivalence classes which is isomorphic to the set of natural or real numbers. From this the concept of time emerges naturally.

QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 18 2006, 08:43 AM)
Time as some call it is merely change of some kind.
Not by any definition I can find. Point-like changes are "events." Gradual changes often are composed of, or can be conceptualized as a great number of "events."
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 18 2006, 08:43 AM)
It does not exist as a seperate dimension any more than boiling a pot of water does.
Given events, and the "arrows" of cause and effect, something very like time as a dimension does exist, provided that the "arrows" are experimentally observed to conform to the predictions of the Newtonian or Relativistic models.

QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 18 2006, 08:43 AM)
It is not reversible.
This is generally part of the definition of "time" -- a bidirectional time would mean causality loops would be trivial. But at the quantum level, Casmir force seems to indicate that quantum casual loops do exist and that the smallness of Planck's Constant keeps them small in size.
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 18 2006, 08:43 AM)
You can predict the future, but any number of X factors can happen, changing it entirely.
Yes, the future, like Death, is a type of "undiscovered country." This would seem to argue that time is real, or you could casually browse the future for the outcome you want.

QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 18 2006, 08:43 AM)
Yes, as I said, "time" helps us cope with the world around us. Animals get by without this concept because they lead less complicated lives.
Animals are just as time-bound as we are. The short lives of mayflies, the diurnal cycle in nearly every vertebrate species, the mating habits of the grunion....
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 18 2006, 08:43 AM)
Your examples are just examples of maths.
But the simplest possible of maths. Euler would mock my pedestrian attempts to invoke graph and topology theory, and point out the weakness of my argument that this leads to a metrical time.
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 18 2006, 08:43 AM)
In the real world it is NOW and you can remember or try and predict certain A and B events but that is still only maths.
You can't even say "cause precedes effect" without the concept of time. All the math boils down to is to ask for a counter-example to that 3-word phrase.

QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 18 2006, 08:43 AM)
The distant past merely demonstrates that what happened can still happen, that the laws of the universe have not changed. The past, even one second ago is gone forever.
Not saying it isn't -- it's part of the definition of time. "Time is fleeting." But you can't save it in a bottle, just like you can't save length or intelligence in a bottle (Starbucks marketing efforts not withstanding). Intelligence isn't even something that psychologists know how to measure, but they think it's real.

If all of this is argument that "X isn't real because it has no Y," you have to define X and Y, show that everyone else says X must have Y, and then show there is no Y.
*vanadesse
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 19 2006, 03:33 AM)
Atomic clocks work on measuring heated cesium atoms going up and then measuring them going down again. So on a 2G planet, I throw a ball into the air and it doesn't go up as high as on a 1G planet, and it comes down faster. Wow! Time dilation in action.

Too bad that would show the opposite effect... If on a 1G planet the ball or cesium atom goes one meter into the air and takes a total of two seconds, then you are saying that on a 2G planet the ball goes only say half a meter into the air and takes 3/4 seconds. Obviously the clock on the 2G planet would be moving faster, not slower.
QUOTE
But didn't space originally inflate at 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the speed of light? Hasn't it been suggested that beyond our present view, where light has had insufficient time to reach us that space may be expanding far faster than light? This suggests that space is in no way connected to light speed. Unless Quantum Fairy Tales are wrong, that is. Would space go back through time if it passes the light barrier?

There is no reason why space shouldn't be able to go faster than light. Space doesn't have mass. Space isn't moving through space-time. So it doesn't have any of the problems that matter does.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
But didn't space originally inflate at 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the speed of light? Hasn't it been suggested that beyond our present view, where light has had insufficient time to reach us that space may be expanding far faster than light? This suggests that space is in no way connected to light speed. Unless Quantum Fairy Tales are wrong, that is. Would space go back through time if it passes the light barrier?

There is no reason why space shouldn't be able to go faster than light. Space doesn't have mass. Space isn't moving through space-time. So it doesn't have any of the problems that matter does.
Rather than going through the lot just to please you, you tell me what you want to know. I spent several years on another board arguing such stuff. It produced some real ignorance when people where asked to question there almost religiously held beliefs, and all they can do is just quote text book answers back, even when they were shown flawed.

Why should I try to find a different theory to explain things that I already understand? You haven't shown that anything is flawed yet. When you do, I will listen.
QUOTE
E=MC2 is the energy produced from the annihilation of matter. Energy normally travels at light speed. Matter can't. Energy is not matter or mass. I have a cable. I then put several million volts through it at high amperage. Has that cable now become heavier?

Yeah it has. But remember: E=mc^2. C^2 is an extremely big number. You need a LOT of energy to create just a little bit of matter.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
E=MC2 is the energy produced from the annihilation of matter. Energy normally travels at light speed. Matter can't. Energy is not matter or mass. I have a cable. I then put several million volts through it at high amperage. Has that cable now become heavier?

Yeah it has. But remember: E=mc^2. C^2 is an extremely big number. You need a LOT of energy to create just a little bit of matter.
We are talking near light speed. I don't know why you are blathering on about our present relatively stationary speeds.

Special Relativity works no matter what speed you are moving at.
Nick
QUOTE (*vanadesse+Dec 15 2006, 04:59 AM)
It warps space-time.

THERE ARE NO WARPS.
TIME SLOWS DOWN.
How does massdenstity manage to slow time?

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
*vanadesse
QUOTE (Nick+Dec 19 2006, 06:27 PM)
THERE ARE NO WARPS.
TIME SLOWS DOWN.
How does massdenstity manage to slow time?

Time slows down because mass warps space-time. You can't just say "there are no warps" and then ask how time slows down. WHY are there "no warps"?
4Dguy
Kaneda,

We are always in present time. On a 1G or a 2G planet they would both be living in the present time. The person on the 2G planet would live slower but at the same time not notice the difference. In a space ship approaching the speed of light you would be living in the present. Near the speed of light the atoms in your ship and body will have slowed down along with the synapses in the brain. If a year went by for every second your life in the present would seem like a normal duration for you. As you approach the speed of light the atoms in the space ship slow down but not the speed of the space ship.

Einstein said that the speed of light and an atomic clock could be used interchangeably. Atomic clocks have been synchronized and experiments done to prove where and by how much the speed of light changes. Gravity is a big factor. These experiments were done multiple times with controls to show the ruggedness of the atomic clocks. I think the signac effect was one of the most interesting light experiments.

By the way if you do not believe in the future could you send me all your money (just joking). I am sure I could enjoy it in a present time of the future.
Nick
QUOTE (*vanadesse+Dec 20 2006, 02:56 AM)
Time slows down because mass warps space-time. You can't just say "there are no warps" and then ask how time slows down. WHY are there "no warps"?

Because WARPS are the wrong word for time slowdown. TIME DOESN'T "WARP."

Why does massdensity slow time?
Solid State Universe
The Universe has a temporal dimension.

This cannot be disputed.
kaneda
rpenner. I never said there was not cause and effect. I said that there is no dimension of time. Sure there was a past. Sure there will be a future. But the past is memories and the future a projection based on what we know.

Please demonstrate that time exists as a dimension as you claim it does.

Infinite. Time machines. Lets not get into fairy tale land.

You are quoting mathworld again.

If time moves in one direction, why not twice as fast in some places? How is it we can only slow things down, things being atomic clocks (anything else is an imagined projection).

I thought if time was a dimension, we could do something off of the maths page about it other than use a clock to count it as it passes?

Inbuilt clocks following set processes. Said clocks are chemically activated, also magnetic fields, light and other such triggers.

I am just stating that what we call time, like intelligence, heat, etc are the real world. There is no dimensions to them. As I said, you don't travel through SPACEHEAT so why should we travel through spacetime, when time is completely seperate from space? You are, as you would put it, moving through time even when you are not moving through space. Even if stationary in space since your body will still age.
kaneda
vanadesse. Except for the fact that the cesium each time has to be heated to 90-100.C which takes longer on a heavier G force world.

Actually we only have the word of measurerers of change for that. Atomic clocks. No one has ever actually left Earth in a ship at nearly light speed to return 20 years later. What experiments have been done on the clocks themselves (as controls) to show that they are accurately measuring what people believe rather than having their mechanisms affected so giving a false reading?

Sure there could be 10,000 dimensions but probably not. So far there are just three. Actually other dimensions are easy to imagine. Imagine a cube. Now imagine that cube extended in a direction not shown by the other six faces. That's a 4D cube (tesseract). Extend it in another direction and you have a 5D cube. A circle becomes a cone (with a rounded bottom) in 4D.

If time had a dimension, you would have to imagine it as a reel of film with people moving from frame to frame, instant to instant.

I am not going to spend the next few years arguing with what I think is wrong with various theories. Been there, done that. Trouble is, the only answers I ever got was (in so many words): "But our book is right". Creationism is boring, whether religion or science inspired.


So, we can measure literately atomic weights. We hope to detect gravity waves.

I am talking about slowing down chemical reactions at near light speed. You cannot run 100 mph in a vehcile moving at 60 mph below light speed.

No. You have had an increased transfer of energy at the point of impact. The mass has remained the same.
kaneda
Nick. Space bends near very dense objects so light following a "straight" path bends too, as in galactic lensing. Light is also red shifted in gravity wells, with gravity slowing down the frequency so stretching the wavelength of photons.


As to time slowing, that is just theory.

Example: You are running at 12 mph and an evil scientist uses a time ray on you which slows you down by four times. Are you now running at 3mph or still running at 12 mph but aging slower?

Can you believe that many people here will actually choose the latter? And they say creationists are dim.
tikay
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 16 2006, 02:23 AM)


I know what you mean about coherence. It is not always easy to put some concepts you know about into words understandable to another.

Bravo !
(once again)

If this were easily accomplished I would possibly have fans. tongue.gif
tikay
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 20 2006, 04:30 AM)


Sure there could be 10,000 dimensions but probably not. So far there are just three. Actually other dimensions are easy to imagine. Imagine a cube. Now imagine that cube extended in a direction not shown by the other six faces. That's a 4D cube (tesseract). Extend it in another direction and you have a 5D cube. A circle becomes a cone (with a rounded bottom) in 4D.

If time had a dimension, you would have to imagine it as a reel of film with people moving from frame to frame, instant to instant.

I am not going to spend the next few years arguing with what I think is wrong with various theories. Been there, done that. Trouble is, the only answers I ever got was (in so many words): "But our book is right". Creationism is boring, whether religion or science inspired.


So, we can measure literately atomic weights. We hope to detect gravity waves.

I am talking about slowing down chemical reactions at near light speed. You cannot run 100 mph in a vehcile moving at 60 mph below light speed.

No. You have had an increased transfer of energy at the point of impact. The mass has remained the same.

thanks for the simple definition of a tesseract...it helps me to enlarge my vision.

I thought of a faceted crystal, with light pouring off the facets in varying directions, would a square be better as an example, for understanding the limitations of this tesseract?

I have also used a film analogy in explaining how time is seen, then, that to cut and edit the film, is an analogy allowing one to move through time... not bodily of course, but mentally.


creationism can be very limited...but if you study anything, it becomes interesting.

Zephir
QUOTE (Nick+Dec 20 2006, 08:11 AM)
Why does mass density slow time?

Because it slovens the energy spreading, i.e. the concentration leveling of underlying particles of matter.... This is simple to understand, as the diffusion slovens with the particle field density.

Surprisingly enough, both the energy, both the matter motion occurs along the straightest path available from the very same reason: the concentration leveling, i.e. the particle diffusion, which follows the shortest path available. The energy is simply causal stream of tiny inertial particles in energy field and vice-versa: the matter is manifestation of causal (preferably harmonic) energy in the material field.

QUOTE (Tikay+Dec 20 2006, 08:11 AM)
creationism can be very limited...but if you study anything, it becomes interesting...

The creationists are right at the point, the evolution is not always gradualists process. The AWT is the matter wave interference theory and as such it anticipates the quantum mechanic approach. Each the gradualists fluctuations is alternated by the atemporal phase transitions. The Universe inflation, social revolution, biological steps of evolution or quantum jumps can be considered as the creationist epoch of gradualists evolution.

The problem is in interpretation of such evolutionary steps. the AWT supposes, they're always manifestation of quantum step, i.e. underlying system hysteresis, not the manifestation of higher intelligence. Of course, the underlying system can be always considered as a more large, complex and therefore "intelligent", then this newly created - so the definition of intelligent creator is rather disputable here.
rpenner
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 20 2006, 11:42 AM)
Example: You are running at 12 mph and an evil scientist uses a time ray on you which slows you down by four times. Are you now running at 3mph or still running at 12 mph but aging slower?

How do you know the evil scientist didn't make the rest of the universe go 4 times faster? Explain your reasoning.
kaneda
If someone slows you down, doesn't it affect all aspects of you? Why should it not affect the speed you travel at too?
Pan
QUOTE
Poor poor pan. A scientific creationist... I think you must be dad1 under another name.


rolleyes.gif Wow, that was outa left field. A fine example of your mental prowess and methodology in coming to that conclusion. If you weren't so lazy, you might do a wee bit of research, like finding a post of mine in EvC. That would have saved you this embarrassing moment, but instead it is your obvious M.O. to repeatedly and with conviction say whatever random butt-nugget rattles in your head and pretend doing so will convince folks you know what you're talking about.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Poor poor pan. A scientific creationist... I think you must be dad1 under another name.


rolleyes.gif Wow, that was outa left field. A fine example of your mental prowess and methodology in coming to that conclusion. If you weren't so lazy, you might do a wee bit of research, like finding a post of mine in EvC. That would have saved you this embarrassing moment, but instead it is your obvious M.O. to repeatedly and with conviction say whatever random butt-nugget rattles in your head and pretend doing so will convince folks you know what you're talking about.

who believes every word in a text book is infallibly right from the first to the last.


You mistake believing that a textbook is more likely to be right than some demonstrated idiot on the internet is believing a textbook is infallible.

Oh, I just called you a demonstrated idiot. Now is the point where you may hypocritically cry about a personal insult. However, it is not, it's just a fact that you've supplied. For example, idiocy demonstrated here:

QUOTE
Atomic clocks work on measuring heated cesium atoms going up and then measuring them going down again. So on a 2G planet, I throw a ball into the air and it doesn't go up as high as on a 1G planet, and it comes down faster. Wow! Time dilation in action.


laugh.gif BWAHAHAHA!!! You don't even understand how cesium clocks work, and you are arguing their use in the SR test? They aren't measuring cesium atoms moving up and down, they are measuring the population of higher energy cesium atoms to lower energy ones, the energy being supplied at a particular frequency, the frequency controlled by a clock.

You don't understand what I just said, of course. You won't, because that would require you to go out and learn something, but your crank paranoia and laziness will prevent that and you'll just come back and blather your same s#*% with more bluster. Have at it, keep on embarrassing yourself, but know the world doesn't need you to understand jack to move on. You're an idiot and no one cares.

Good luck with that.

Derek1148
Man developed a method of measuring time. Time is not an invention of man.
amrit
TIME IS A MIND FRAME INTO WHICH WE EXPERIENCE MOTION INTO A-TEMPORAL SPACE

http://web.ionsys.com/~remedy/Consciousnes...arch%20Tool.htm

but without awakening your consciousness you will be never able to cope that

my other publication on a-temporal concept in physics

Sorli A. (2004). Physical Time And Psychological Time.
Frontier Perspectives, Vol 13, Num 1

Sorli A. (2004). Time Is Change. Episteme, Perugia, Italy, Number 8
http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep8/ep8.htm

Sorli A., Sorli I. K. (2004). The Scientific Basis For The Development Of Human Consciousness. Episteme, Perrugia, Italy, Number 8, http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep8/ep8-sorli2.htm

Sorli A. (2004), Timeless Space. Scientific and Medical Network
http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/Leadarts/sorli_space.htm

Sorli A, Sorli K. (2004). Does Time Really Exist As A Fourth Dimension Of Space ? Journal of Theoretics, Vol. 6-3, http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/6-3/S.pdf

Sorli A, Sorli I. (2004). A-temporal Gravitation, Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 1, Num 2 http://www.ejtp.com/articles/EJTP4

Sorlia., Sorli K. (2004). From Space-time to Space, Journal Of Theoretics, Vol 6-4
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Article...mmentary6-4.pdf

Sorli A, Sorli I. (2004). A-temporal Universe, Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 3, Num 3 http://www.ejtp.com/articles/EJTP7


Sorli A. Sorli I. (2004). Mathematical Time And Physical Time In The Theory Of Relativity, Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 1, Num 4 http://www.ejtp.com/articles/ejtpv1i4p25

Sorli A. Sorli K. (2004). Mind And Scientific Experience , NEUROSCIENZE.com
Vol 1, Num 0, http://www.neuroscienze.net/pdf/380.pdf


Sorl A. Sorli I. (2005) From Space-time to A-Temporal Physical Space, Frontier Perspectives, Vol 14, Num 1

Sorli A., Sorli I. (2005). A-Temporal Gravitation And Hypothetical Gravitational waves
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 2, Num 5 www.ejtp.com

Sorli A. Sorli I. (2005). Consciousness As A Research Tool Into Space And Time,
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 2, Num 6 www.ejtp.com

Sorli A. Fiscaletti D. (2005). Active Galactic Nucleus As a Renewing Systems Of the Universe Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 2, Num 6 www.ejtp.com

Sorli A. A-Temporal Universe (2005) Scientific And Medical Network http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/Leadarts...i_atemporal.htm
kaneda
Pan. Wow! Only 13 days to think up an answer? You really are smart.

A scientific creationist is someone who believes all text books are infallibly true and believes them all from the first word to the last (like the biblical creationists), and usually quotes them word for word as an answer.

You have demonstrated nothing except a child's ability to insult. Your evidence that my assertions on time are wrong so far are......missing.

Let me try talking clodinese so you understand. Cesium atoms are measured going up and coming down. I did not say what was measured. Merely that this method of measurement is vulnerable to movement of the clock, and to gravity.

Amazing. So now we have clocks that can control the energy frequency of cesium atoms? I bet Stephen Hawking wishes he had a brain like yours. It is the right size for a quantum engine.

Some of your poor quality toilet pan humour. No doubt your way of trying to get out of explaining that you know nothing about time. I see pupamancur loves you. A fellow dullard.
amrit
you have bed sense for humor
that is sign of low intelligence too
Pan
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 29 2006, 10:57 AM)
Pan. Wow! Only 13 days to think up an answer? You really are smart.

A scientific creationist is someone who believes all text books are infallibly true and believes them all from the first word to the last (like the biblical creationists), and usually quotes them word for word as an answer.

You have demonstrated nothing except a child's ability to insult. Your evidence that my assertions on time are wrong so far are......missing.

Let me try talking clodinese so you understand. Cesium atoms are measured going up and coming down. I did not say what was measured. Merely that this method of measurement is vulnerable to movement of the clock, and to gravity.

Amazing. So now we have clocks that can control the energy frequency of cesium atoms? I bet Stephen Hawking wishes he had a brain like yours. It is the right size for a quantum engine.

Some of your poor quality toilet pan humour. No doubt your way of trying to get out of explaining that you know nothing about time. I see pupamancur loves you. A fellow dullard.

kaneda, you're just not that important and there's a bit of a holiday season going on over here, so excuse me if my response time doesn't fit into your lonely life.

Google "scientific creationist," and you'll see that it is a term for a creationist who is trying to "prove" their creationist myths with the facade of science to impress the ignorant. Of course, you can inject whatever meaning into whatever word or phrase as you see fit, such is language, just don't think that anyone else is going to understand what you're saying.

Actually, if you didn't mean "creationist" when you said "scientific creationist," why did you say you thought I was dad1? As I remember he is a creationist as we both understand, and certainly doesn't believe what is in text books as he was arguing that radiometric dating was all a lie. Maybe you just can't keep a coherent thought for more than a sentence or two, or maybe you're a liar. Maybe both. Should you be on some meds, is that what this is about, you stopped taking your Rx?

Now, again, I'm not insulting you, I'm pointing out what should be obvious to everyone by now: You don't know what you're talking about, you're too lazy to learn what you're talking about, and your huge ego has you believing you're right. In other words, you are an idiot. Not an insult, kandea, a fact. I've already shown that you didn't know what you were talking about with the evidence for time dilation, and now I bet everyone else has looked up how atomic clocks work, proving to them you don't know what you're talking about when speaking of atomic clocks. Yet, here you are with your hypocritical and piss poor attempts at insult ("clodinese," "13 days to think up an answer"? Wow, I actually feel sorry for you now, like a kicked a puppy.) because you're too stupid and too full of yourself to have the good grace to give up and slink away.

"Cesium atoms are measured going up and coming down." HAhaha! What a nugget.


amrit
clocks are mechanisms that measure speed of material change into atemporal space
and this material change into atemporal space we live into time that is a mind frame


happy new year
ChaosTheory
QUOTE (amrit+Dec 13 2006, 08:28 PM)
Albert Einstein about time:
Space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions under which we live." Time--the time that we know through clocks and calendars--was invented. http://www.britannica.com/clockworks/article.html


Time (in my opinion) seems to be slowed down when you are aware of its constant fluctuations throughout the known environment.
And (oblivious to our innate senses) seems to speed up when we do not pay attention to it.

Walking for example.
Paying attention to how much time you are taking while performing the exercise makes the distance seem that much farther,
rather then concentrate on the scenery or corporal movements (right foot in front of the left etc) makes time shift around you in a faster manner.

There are many ways that a human mind can interpret these philosophies but i hardly am one to comment on such a vast brilliance to a subject.

However i slightly agree with kaneda that time is a man-made invention.

We studied times shifting changes long before we even had clocks.
This is simply stated because we where AWARE of such changes.

Even if we are to constant shift our senses from times shifts in the environment there will always be a constant VISUAL flow of time that the human senses can see it whether we know it or not. i.e. the earths rotation around the sun, the changing of seasons etc etc.

And even if we where going to discover ways of measuring time it was simply a bi-product of technology increasing in our world.
ChaosTheory
QUOTE (ChaosTheory+Jan 7 2007, 12:42 AM)
Even if we are to constantly shift our senses

Spelling mistake -.-
kaneda
Oh no. I've been officially bored by Pan.

If you owned a dictionary, you would know that words and phrases frequently have more than one meaning. Like Pan can mean toilet pan.

No I don't think you are dad1. Not smart enough. Maybe pupacranker, I think. Insults but no brains fits his aliases. Come out of hiding have you?

More childish insults from a very childish person. And what an ego. I don't agree with your mistakes so I must have something wrong with me. Me, and six billion other people who can see your poor attempts at humour.

I've posted over 1100 threads here in 2 months and the number of times you have shown me to be wrong are zero so what are you blabbering about me not knowing what I am talking about? The truth is that my posts are too difficult for you to understand so you try to hide your ignorance in insults you learned in the school playground recently.

As to the "nugget" try:

http://inms-ienm.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/research/cesium_clock_e.html

which will show you why you don't have a clue as you seem to think science facts are funny and also explain why using a moving atomic clock to measure anything will produce wrong results.
kaneda
Chaos Theory. Good to see you here. The more, the merrier.

Perceived time travels at different rates because you are actually remembering it rather than experiencing it (at that moment). It is all down to what I call "memory points". If you are doing something interesting, you will remember it and each of the details so have lots of recent memory points which you can remember back to. If you are doing something boring, your last memory point to remember back to will be quite some time ago with seemingly nothing happening in between.

Note. For an hour after you have posted, there is an "Edit" facility available which means you can change your post, like I just did.
4Dguy


There are two different systems going on to sense the flow of time. The frame that you are in that controls the electron cycle rate and how fast your synapses are firing. At my age they fire rather slowly. Relative time is going faster for me than those who are younger.
Pan
Oh god, you are such a pathetic idiot. Your desperate attempts at insult, your squirming, your repeated demonstrations of stupidity...

Did you read that link you just posted, or did you just look at the pretty pictures? Because if you think that cesium fountain clock measures time by measuring the atoms "going up and coming down" you've just proven everything I've said in this thread: You're an idiot and you don't know what you're talking about.

So keep lying to yourself and to everyone else here, because we can just link back to this thread to as an excellent demonstration of what kind of half-witted @$$clown you are.


kaneda
Panpamancur. I suppose you couldn't get a five year old to explain the site to you that not everyone uses beam clocks now as fountain clocks are more accurate. Perhaps you only looked at the pictures instead of reading all those big words?

QUOTE
Interrogation: The atoms follow a fountain-like course, passing through the microwave cavity twice.

The atoms continue and pass through the microwave cavity, are in free flight above it for approximately 0.5 s, and are then pulled back down under the force of gravity. During each of the two passages through the microwave cavity, the atoms interact with microwaves of frequency is 9192631770 Hz After passing through the cavity a second time (on the way down), almost all of the atoms have made the transition into the F=3, mF=0 state.



What is this thing you have about @$$ panpamancur? If you come out of the closet, I'm sure all the people on this board will respect you for it.
kaneda
4Dguy. With people, remembering the past (weeks, months, years), it is again about memory points, how many things are worth remembering. Someone I worked with, aged 64 confessed he could not remember whole years. He did not have a bad memory but for whole years had basically got up, gone to work, watched TV and gone to bed (being a cheap skate). There was just nothing worth remembering in any of it and the whole lot had just blurred together. What I remember most about past years are holidays I took to different places. They stand out.

To a young child, everything is new so is remembered.

If you have a hobby you can absorb huge amounts of information about it easily which someone with no interest in it would find very difficult to remember. Wanting to remember plays a part too.
tikay
abducos abeo abcido...au revior...arigato, bye bye! wink.gif
ChaosTheory
kaneda, as for your note i was currently on dial-up due to the spilling of some sensible materials into my computers fan rendering it inoperable for quite some time. So i had to make a trip to a local GEARShift (CSs LAN centre) and use their crappy dial-up services.
And i was eager to post smile.gif.

''Memory points'' are a referred decay to nerve endings and brain cells within the synapses that end up resulting in such ''memory'' loss and other such diseases as Alzheimer's.

Even still as these nerve endings and various cells decay overtime we still experience a spectral travel in time variations (such as the rising and setting of the sun as i mentioned earlier).
Whether such decay allows us to view these periods of time shifts (blindness and other such disabilities may limit these visual sights) we still may view time as however fast or slow we perceive.

I'm sure all of you have ever seen the movie Hyper Cube. (horrendously bad acting and even worse directing, even the CGI was somewhat dismal)
Several sections of the movie was based around time anomalies (unsure as to the spelling) but that was the ONLY ''man-made'' indication of a fluctuation in time.
Whether it be a movie or not.

Some of those spectral shifts in time DO indeed exist. Forces such a black holes are known to have been recorded to either speed up time or slow it to a complete stop all the while absorbing all known matter and light into its dark crushing abyssal infinite depths.
Pan
Oh, I see, now I'm Pupamancur too? Am I still dad1 as well? This is certainly one of the sillier tactics your trying so hard to hide behind.

You know, I've looked at some of your other posts, and you don't seem obviously stupid as you are here. I think we're back to the bat$#*t crazy theory. See, my theory is that you are so afraid to be wrong, you need to justify the number of people who are showing you how you are wrong by claiming they are the same person. "Surely," you say to yourself, "there can't be this many people saying I'm wrong, because I ?!"

It would also explain your very selective quote of your site to avoid the fact that the cesium fountain atomic clock is essentially the same as the older cesium thermal beam clock with respect to how they measure time: They measure the population excited cesium atoms excited by a microwave source tuned by a quartz clock.

See, here, also from the site you cite, and quote:
QUOTE
...Atoms can change energy levels by absorbing or emitting a photon of light with a frequency that is close to their resonant frequency. On their flight upwards, the atoms pass through a laser beam with a frequency close to one of cesium's resonant frequencies. Some atoms undergo a transition between energy levels so that all atoms are at the same energy level F=4,mF=0 before entering the microwave cavity...

...The atoms continue and pass through the microwave cavity, are in free flight above it for approximately 0.5 s, and are then pulled back down under the force of gravity. During each of the two passages through the microwave cavity, the atoms interact with microwaves of frequency is 9192631770 Hz After passing through the cavity a second time (on the way down), almost all of the atoms have made the transition into the F=3, mF=0 state...

Below the microwave cavity, the descending atoms are probed with several laser beams. The lasers cause the atoms to change atomic states and fluoresce (emit light). The fluorescence photons are detected by a photodiode and are used to build up the clock signal. When all the atoms have undergone the transition into the desired state, the signal is at a maximum. The intensity of the signal is used to correct the frequency of the microwaves in the cavity....

Where does the time signal come from?
The time signal comes from an ultra-stable oscillator, in our case a quartz crystal (with a frequency of 5 MHz), that is part of the loop shown in the diagram [ below ] This signal is multiplied using a frequency multiplier to generate hyper frequencies, or microwaves. The microwaves irradiate the atoms as they pass through the microwave cavity. The atoms' response depends on the microwave frequency as is shown on the diagram on the lower right. When the frequency of the microwave radiation is perfectly tuned to cesium's transition frequency (o), the atoms' response is maximized. By slightly modulating the microwave frequency, the atoms' response to a range of known frequencies can be determined. Each time the atoms respond to the microwave radiation, an error signal can be constructed and sent via a feedback loop to stabilize the local oscillator at the right frequency. Thus, the fountain and quartz crystal work in conjunction to provide the frequency standard for the second and the number of seconds are counted by a registering device.


User posted image

Besides telling you that the clock measures time by measuring the population of excited cesium atoms which is used to correct a quartz clock, as I've been saying, you may also note that in referring to the vertical movement, the times are very vague. Be sorta odd that an international time standard has such flippant measurements for the time of flight if the time of flight was what was being measured.

Soooo... you're dishonest, a pathological liar, or have no idea what you are talking about; which is it?

I'll also point out that the atomic clocks used in the Hafele-Keating experiment (flying them around in jetliners, the experiment you've been referring to) were the older thermal beam clocks (the beams move horizontally) not the newer fountain clocks.

Game. Set. Match. There is nothing more you can say about this, you lose, and you're welcome for the edification. So you were wrong about the clocks, and thus your understanding about their use in testing relativity. That's okay; however your dogged insistence on being a fool isn't. Which I now also find pitiful and sad whereas before I was just contemptuous. So just admit you were wrong and apologize, and all this will all be behind you.
4Dguy
Bye tikay I will miss you.
MDT
Time is a reference variable. But time is also a potential. It is an aspect of energy. One can not measure time without energy somehow being involved in the picture. At the very least, energy from a change of state, needs to impinge upon equiptment or our brains for us to measure time. Without energy there is no way to measure time.

If you look at quanta of EM energy, energy is Planck's constant times the frequency. The frequency of a photon is a natural measure of time. This natural measure of time is directly proportional to the energy. Or energy is time potential times a constant.

Energy is not only needed to measure time but it is also needed to measure distance. Without energy, such as light, one could not see distance to be able to meaure it. Try to measure distance without any form of energy involved. You get nothing. Energy allows time and distance to become expressed and allows them to be measured.

Edoesn't=Mc^2
Couldn't 'real' time simply be defined as measured entropy and 'imaginary' time as the human element (ie. a clock on the wall or a calendar), which is entirely imaginary (as in our heads)?
fizzeksman
.

Pardon my butting in.... It's hard to resist putting in a few words in a light hearted conversation!

I have encountered several interesting concepts of time over the years... some I am willing to share.... to wit.

Time is holographic and our consciousness travels through it. Some seem to have an ability to step outside the mainstream flow and get a larger picture of past and future than others.

Time is a line stretching from beginning of time to the end of time .. any point is the beginning and the end... always one and the same.

Time is perception... without which it would cease to exist. (This seems the most reasonable aspect to attack if one would become a time lord)

Time flow is related to the density of the space through which we travel and experience it. (that's why we all seem to experience times of greater or lesser productivity or increased or decreased perception of fast or slow time simultaneously)

Time is a variable... and a constant... (at the same time????)

Everything we experience is cause and effect.. The past is the cause that precipitates the present... the present is the cause that precipitates the future..
Any translation of cause and effect implies an elasticity at the point of translation or impact... otherwise two interacting actions occurring simultaneously become the same action. From this perspective... the present is the point of impact between the past and the future which makes the present a compression zone... and the past and the future would expand as the distance from the present increases.

I have also experienced a few rather uncomfortable brushes with aspects relating to time that can only be called paranormal.... and could in no known way be explained scientifically... which leads me to question how accurately our empiricism can explain time.


Cheers unsure.gif

.
ChaosTheory
QUOTE (fizzeksman+Jan 12 2007, 02:15 AM)

Time is perception... without which it would cease to exist. (This seems the most reasonable aspect to attack if one would become a time lord)

I have also experienced a few rather uncomfortable brushes with aspects relating to time that can only be called paranormal.... and could in no known way be explained scientifically... which leads me to question how accurately our empiricism can explain time.

Which is exactly what i have stated twice now.

Time is a perceptional reasoning and has roots dictating that we have been able to perceive time as a measurement since the creation of sun dials or celtic stone circles.
At any rate it IS a combination of mental perception and sub-concious awareness.

We do not see time visually, no, but we most certainly FEEL time.
amrit

time is a concept
with clocks we measure duration of material change into a-temporal space
there is no time in universe
Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Jan 12 2007, 08:00 PM)
time is a concept, with clocks we measure duration of material change into a-temporal space, there is no time in universe

Whereas with yard stick we are measure the distance intervals between location of material distribution into a-spatial space, here's no space in Universe.... wink.gif

For example the bat (flitter-mouse) uses the time concept for navigation in space heavily, so we can say, here's no space for bats, just the permanent time intervals measurement and no space concept is necessary for description of their motion - just the time.

user posted image User posted image

The bat doesn't estimate the distance by using of sound frequency in general, but by time intervals during short 5 msec pulses of FM ultrasound, similar to chattering and flicking (the real sound sample is linked below the waveform). So I can really say, the bat perceives the distances just by some abstract time intervals...

From this point of view, the space is (un)real by the same way, like the time and such stance is solely reciprocal and the space can be perceived by the time (intervals) easily. If you're crossing some large room at the dark, you can use the stopwatches for safe navigating through such room.

This is a reason, why the Aether Wave theory (AWT) doesn't prefer the time concept over space and it uses both the concept of time, both the space in mutual duality, connected by the recursive solution of wave equation.

The complete description of reality without one from both these concept cannot be effective, i.e. both the time, both space is required for physic by the same way. For example the concept of mass and inertia used by Newtonian dynamic is based on acceleration, which cannot be expressed without time concept.
4Dguy
Zephir,

Yes, time does make the world go round.
Zephir
QUOTE (4Dguy+Jan 13 2007, 04:20 AM)
Yes, time does make the world go round.

We can even imagine, whole the Universe mass is materialized Universe history.
kaneda
Pan. All the charm of pupamancur and the truth of dad1. And a brand new brain too which has never been used.
Pan
rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (kaneda+Jan 14 2007, 08:28 AM)
Pan. "You were right and I was wrong. I'm embarrassed by it and so I feel the need to strike out feebly one last time."*


*Cause you aren't man enough to admit to your foibles, I paraphrased your last response.
thinkbig!
If time does exist, can someone please explain how they came to that conclusion
Nick
Time can be proven to exist because it is a physical quantity measurable by a clock. Since clocks slowdown time time slowdown bears witness to the absolute existance of time.
thinkbig!
Yeah, but we invented the clock. The clock is based on days based on the earth spinning and revolving around the sun. But if your in space then time wouldn't still exist since there is no way to measure something without beginning and end. You can still say it's been ten minutes, but that wouldn't matter. It wouldn't be ten minutes closer to anything or further from anything. Confusing topic this time thing is.
rpenner
QUOTE (thinkbig!+Feb 6 2007, 08:54 PM)
If time does exist, can someone please explain how they came to that conclusion

Because not everything happens at once, there is something in addition to spacial separation which makes events distinct from one another. Also because for three events which happen to a single point-like object, all observers see the three events happen in the same sequence if any observer sees them in sequence indicate that there is an objective distinction of these events. Also because there are regular repeating events which to high accuracy repeat in ratio to each other, lead to the conclusion that time is (at least approximately) metrical.

From these observations, time exists, to a high degree of accuracy all observers agree in the direction of time, and it should be physically possible to measure it objectively.
Gorgeous
crankage. biggrin.gif just a great word.

about ten past three
Guest_Bob
I don't have the time to linger
But surely time is the singer
Not the song?
For how long
Does the past
Last?
An Instant in time,
Perchance?
Nick
Time is the rate at which things come to pass. From the other perspective it is the going from the "NOW" into the future. tongue.gif

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --

OldWoman1904
(Look at 'em )

dry.gif

( They really get mad!)

( I wonder what they're grunting about)

huh.gif

( They seem to be serious, look, that one has a big red nose!!! laugh.gif )

( Maybe I should throw a banana to one of them, the small one)

( Look, they are pointing up to the stars and then........arguing?....... What does ooga-booga mean? )

( Maybe it means gravity.........ooga booga........)

( Monkeys are funny)

Hey monkeys!!! Ooga-booga!!!!
Nowtime
QUOTE (amrit+Jan 12 2007, 05:00 PM)
time is a concept
with clocks we measure duration of material change into a-temporal space
there is no time in universe

I have only one question Amrit. How can events occur without time? It is not a trick question. I have answered it.
Nowtime
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Mar 27 2007, 03:25 PM)
(Look at 'em )

dry.gif

( They really get mad!)

( I wonder what they're grunting about)


The program you refer to, presumably, is to co-ordinate and inter-relate the different time relationships, as each device's time would be set by its size. The reason for a program, presumably, is to co-ordinate a purpose for the total structure.
A universe with different times for different objects appears to fulfill the sense of Relativity and extend its scope, i.e. time dilation due to mass alone. So it has an attractive potential for science, but these individual times would have to be vectored to relate their movements among objects or, more likely, an arbitrary clock time would be used. So, I think its "unnecessarily complex" in the Occam sense. I still believe my explanation is true, if a little hyper. Which, by the way, was not supposed to be an answer to you. It was already written before I sat down. ph34r.gif
Nick
We need time to guage motion. There is no motion without time. tongue.gif

MITCH RAEMCSH -- LIGHT FALL --
Nowtime


Events occur in the continuing present moment.
The continuation of the present moment is not time.
Time begins after the instantaneous present moment has passed
and then time continues into history.
Time spends its whole existence in the past.
Nowtime
QUOTE (Nick+Mar 27 2007, 08:38 PM)
We need time to guage motion. There is no motion without time. tongue.gif

MITCH RAEMCSH -- LIGHT FALL --

Let's see if Amrit has the answer to this question. Otherwise you`ll be stuck with me.
Precursor562
QUOTE
I have only one question Amrit. How can events occur without time? It is not a trick question. I have answered it.


How can time occur without a change in events? The watch is a change in event. The change in position of the minute, second and hour hands. Digital watches are the digital equivalent of a regular watch. The sun was used to tell the time based on its position from moment to moment. The moon was used once to determine a month. It was simply one complete orbit of the moon around the Earth. Time is a human invention based on a moment to moment change (movement). Currently the change we base our time off of is the spin of the Earth and the orbit of the Earth around the sun. Although we have advanced enough that we no longer require either one to continue to monitor time but that is what it was based off of. Instead we use tools such as the watch. It's best to think about the watches that have the second hand at a constant velocity rather than the ones that "jump" from spot to spot at regular intervals. The circumference of the watch (distance) is divided up into 12 equally sized segments. The second hand moves around at a constant rate (speed). This causes the minute hand to do the same where when the tip of the second hand travels the full distance (circumference of the watch face) 3600 times the minute hand will have traveled the circumference once and the hour hand would have moved at a constant speed as well but would have only traveled 1/12 the circumference of the watch face. The circumference of the watch face for both the minute and second hand is divided up into 60 equal segments. For the hour hand it is divided into 12 equal segments where each segment for the second hand (out of the 60) constitutes a second, each for the minute hand (out of the 60) constitutes a minute and each of the 12 for the hour hand constitutes an hour. 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour. So 3600 seconds = 60 minutes = 1 hour. When the hour hand travels the circumference of the watch face twice that is equal to a day also referred to as a complete spin of the Earth.

This didn't have to be this way and historically time (more specifically how we measured moment to moment change) has changed. There are many calenders that have come and gone in human history. All of which are based on predictable motion (such as the moon's orbit, the Earth's orbit and rotation etc.).

However the one we use today isn't perfect. Where we base a day on the spin of the Earth and a year based on the orbit of the Earth around the sun we have 365 days in a year. Unfortunately the Earth doesn't spin exactly 365 times during its orbit and so we have what is a leap year to correct this inaccuracy and prevent a minor inaccuracy from compounding into a major one. Would be kinda weird to have snow in August. wink.gif
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.