(PhysOrg.com) -- The concept of time as a way to measure the duration of events is not only deeply intuitive, it also plays an important role in our mathematical descriptions of physical systems. For instance, we define an object’s speed as its displacement per a given time. But some researchers theorize that this Newtonian idea of time as an absolute quantity that flows on its own, along with the idea that time is the fourth dimension of spacetime, are incorrect. They propose to replace these concepts of time with a view that corresponds more accurately to the physical world: time as a measure of the numerical order of change.
In two recent papers (one published and one to be published) in Physics Essays, Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar from the Scientific Research Centre Bistra in Ptuj, Slovenia, have described in more detail what this means.
No time dimension
They begin by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable (time, t, is often the x-axis on graphs that show the evolution of a physical system). But, as they note, we never really measure t. What we do measure is an object’s frequency, speed, etc. In other words, what experimentally exists are the motion of an object and the tick of a clock, and we compare the object’s motion to the tick of a clock to measure the object’s frequency, speed, etc. By itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence.
This view doesn’t mean that time does not exist, but that time has more to do with space than with the idea of an absolute time. So while 4D spacetime is usually considered to consist of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space. In other words, as they say, the universe is “timeless.”
“Minkowski space is not 3D + T, it is 4D,” the scientists write in their most recent paper. “The point of view which considers time to be a physical entity in which material changes occur is here replaced with a more convenient view of time being merely the numerical order of material change. This view corresponds better to the physical world and has more explanatory power in describing immediate physical phenomena: gravity, electrostatic interaction, information transfer by EPR experiment are physical phenomena carried directly by the space in which physical phenomena occur.”
As the scientists added, the roots of this idea come from Einstein himself.
“Einstein said, ‘Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it,’” Sorli told PhysOrg.com. “Time is exactly the order of events: this is my conclusion.”
In the future, the scientists plan to investigate the possibility that quantum space has three dimensions of space, as Sorli explained.
“The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity,” he said. “We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck work. It seems that the universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”
Numerical order in space
The researchers give an example of this concept of time by imagining a photon that is moving between two points in space. The distance between these two points is composed of Planck distances, each of which is the smallest distance that the photon can move. (The fundamental unit of this motion is Planck time.) When the photon moves a Planck distance, it is moving exclusively in space and not in absolute time, the researchers explain. The photon can be thought of as moving from point 1 to point 2, and its position at point 1 is “before” its position at point 2 in the sense that the number 1 comes before the number 2 in the numerical order. Numerical order is not equivalent to temporal order, i.e., the number 1 does not exist before the number 2 in time, only numerically.
As the researchers explain, without using time as the fourth dimension of spacetime, the physical world can be described more accurately. As physicist Enrico Prati noted in a recent study, Hamiltonian dynamics (equations in classical mechanics) is robustly well-defined without the concept of absolute time. Other scientists have pointed out that the mathematical model of spacetime does not correspond to physical reality, and propose that a timeless “state space” provides a more accurate framework.
The scientists also investigated the falsifiability of the two notions of time. The concept of time as the fourth dimension of space - as a fundamental physical entity in which an experiment occurs - can be falsified by an experiment in which time does not exist, according to the scientists. An example of an experiment in which time is not present as a fundamental entity is the Coulomb experiment; mathematically, this experiment takes place only in space. On the other hand, in the concept of time as a numerical order of change taking place in space, space is the fundamental physical entity in which a given experiment occurs. Although this concept could be falsified by an experiment in which time (measured by clocks) is not the numerical order of material change, such an experiment is not yet known.
“Newton theory on absolute time is not falsifiable, you cannot prove it or disprove it, you have to believe in it,” Sorli said. “The theory of time as the fourth dimension of space is falsifiable and in our last article we prove there are strong indications that it might be wrong. On the basis of experimental data, time is what we measure with clocks: with clocks we measure the numerical order of material change, i.e., motion in space.”
How it makes sense
In addition to providing a more accurate description of the nature of physical reality, the concept of time as a numerical order of change can also resolve Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise. In this paradox, the faster Achilles gives the Tortoise a head start in the race. But although Achilles can run 10 times faster than the Tortoise, he can never surpass the Tortoise because, for every distance unit that Achilles runs, the Tortoise also runs 1/10 that distance. So whenever Achilles reaches a point where the Tortoise has been, the Tortoise has also moved slightly ahead. Although the conclusion that Achilles can never surpass the Tortoise is obviously false, there are many different proposed explanations for why the argument is flawed.
Here, the researchers explain that the paradox can be resolved by redefining velocity, so that the velocity of both runners is derived from the numerical order of their motion, rather than their displacement and direction in time. From this perspective, Achilles and the Tortoise move through space only, and Achilles can surpass Tortoise in space, though not in absolute time.
The researchers also briefly examine how this new view of time fits with how we intuitively perceive time. Many neurological studies have confirmed that we do have a sense of past, present, and future. This evidence has led to the proposal that the brain represents time with an internal “clock” that emits neural ticks (the “pacemaker-accumulator” model). However, some recent studies have challenged this traditional view, and suggest that the brain represents time in a spatially distributed way, by detecting the activation of different neural populations. Although we perceive events as occurring in the past, present, or future, these concepts may just be part of a psychological frame in which we experience material changes in space.
Finally, the researchers explain that this view of time does not look encouraging for time travelers.
“In our view, time travel into the past and future are not possible,” Sorli said. “One can travel in space only, and time is a numerical order of his motion.”
Explore further:
A milestone for molecular beams
More information:
Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar. “Replacing time with numerical order of material change resolves Zeno problems of motion.” Physics Essays, 24, 1 (2011). DOI: 10.4006/1.3525416
Amrit Sorli, Dusan Klinar, and Davide Fiscaletti. “New Insights into the Special Theory of Relativity.” Physics Essays 24, 2 (2011). To be published.
idknow
1.9 / 5 (14) Apr 25, 2011I've known for some years that Time and Distance have no substance. Time and Distance are the same thing from different perspectives, measuring the same thing with different scales.
Finally, that you say that there can be no such thing as Time travel is a phenomenal admission of truth, I applaud it and you. To be able to time travel would require the establishing and choosing of an object with a known and absolute position. This is clearly an impossibility.
1. there are no stationary objects in Space. everything moves;
2. there are no objects traveling a straight vector;
thanks very much.
TheZone
3.8 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2011waremi
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 20116_6
1.3 / 5 (31) Apr 25, 2011Literally a universe sized clock where all the parts have their movements.
gmurphy
4.7 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2011beelize54
1.2 / 5 (23) Apr 25, 2011beelize54
1 / 5 (24) Apr 25, 2011http://www.aether...part.gif
It means, for every phenomena existing in dimensional scale above the scale of observer (wavelength of CMBR ~ 2 cm) exists anti-parallel phenomena, for which the entropic time arrow is reversed. Above 2 cm scale the pressure of radiation is balanced with gravity and the seeming expansion of space-time in visible light is balanced with collapse of space-time in radio waves.
You can predict quite wide range of new phenomena with this model, for example we can expect, the radiowaves will exert a negative pressure of radiation.
yogurtforthesoul
1.7 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2011Mathematically it comes across thusly, in energy equations, etcetera...
beelize54
1 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2011In visible light the light of more distant sources will attenuate faster, than it corresponds ISL and it becomes reddish. In microwaves these phenomena disappear and the Universe would appear as flat, transparent and huge, as possible - no gravitational lens and CMBR shielding and Sunyaev-Zheldovitch effect disappears.
http://www.tgdail...t-at-all
In radiowaves the gravity lens will switch their refractive index and the free space between galaxies will focus the EM radiation, instead. The background radio emission, which is the component smoothly distributed across the whole sky, will appear more brighter, than corresponds the distance of source. And the remote galaxies will appear larger, not smaller (as the classical model of space-expansion implies).
http://arcade.gsf...006.html
Slick
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2011askantik
5 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2011Clearly you missed Clarke's First Law.
stealthc
1 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2011beelize54
1 / 5 (19) Apr 25, 2011stealthc
4.7 / 5 (14) Apr 25, 2011beelize54
1.2 / 5 (18) Apr 25, 2011frajo
5 / 5 (15) Apr 25, 2011beelize54
1 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2011Sean_W
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2011Just when I was getting used to having free will again.
If a photon moved a Planck length in 4D between point 1 and 2 and struck something in just the right way, could it reflect back to point ? Why not?
stealthc
Apr 25, 2011beelize54
1 / 5 (12) Apr 25, 2011dnatwork
2.8 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2011Gravity could also be thought of as dragging space into the black hole, but that would imply motion, which leads back to the speed of light being exceeded. Dragging is not necessary to get things to fall into the black hole. If gravity creates more units of space on the far side of an object in a gravity well, and destroys them on the near side, then space would act like a conveyor belt toward the center, without necessarily having any true motion of the object.
beelize54
1 / 5 (11) Apr 25, 2011stealthc
Apr 25, 2011dnatwork
3.5 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2011Maybe that could account for dark energy; all you need is a lot of space between objects, which is what you have in intergalactic space, and even moreso between galaxy clusters.
Gr8dogman
2.2 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2011stealthc
2 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2011beelize54
1 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2011http://www1.chem....co24.jpg
beelize54
1 / 5 (14) Apr 25, 2011beelize54
1 / 5 (14) Apr 25, 20111) for radiowaves the Universe will exhibit blue shift
2) the gravitational lenses disperse the radiowaves
3) for microwaves the gravitational lens don't exist
4) the intensity of radiowave sources would violate the ISL in positive way
5) for microwaves the Sunyaev-Zheldowitch effect doesn't exist
6) the remote galaxies shrink with time, not expand
7) for radiowaves the pressure of radiation is negative
Which other theory predicts this? You should consider, Einstein predicted just the gravitational lensing and he become famous immediately. What should I expect at the case of confirmation of these effects? Seven Nobel prices or what? I'm not saying, I'm genius - but the AWT is not so silly, as you're pretending here all the time.
kgrey
3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2011Dimensionality is applied incrementalism, regardless of which dimension we speak of. All dimensions are measures of relative motions. This a purely a function of mind in relation to reality. Reality without an observer can only be discussed theoretically, same as Reality with one.
Non-dimensional Reality with infinite dimensions experienced by mind.
All phenomena are "real" experiences of mind using conceptual dimensionality to order experience. A self-sustaining causality loop we cannot escape for the rather obvious reason that we could not experience otherwise.
For those who don't understand the necessity of the observer, I ask how there can be relative measures without? With a purely hypothetical referent, imaginary baselines and such, it still requires someone to hypothesize. With so called "real" or "physical" referents, these have to be selected as the basis for all subsequent applied dimensionality.
Rohitasch
1 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2011kgrey
1 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2011beelize54
1 / 5 (16) Apr 25, 2011http://www.youtub...iFMF4DHA
In aquatic ape hypothesis the people lived near water like dolphins during some time, so they evolved the good ability of sonar navigation.
kgrey
1.5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2011beelize54
1 / 5 (14) Apr 25, 2011ubavontuba
3.9 / 5 (24) Apr 25, 2011The sad part is the less knowledgeable and less experienced readers fall for your tricks and (at least for awhile) mistakenly believe you have some expertise, You are a fraud and a con artist, without conscience or shame.
"Anyone who thinks they're important is usually just a pompous moron who can't deal with his or her own pathetic insignificance and the fact that what they do is meaningless and inconsequential."
- William Thomas
beelize54
1 / 5 (16) Apr 25, 20111) for radiowaves the Universe will exhibit blue shift
2) the gravitational lenses disperse the radiowaves
3) for microwaves the gravitational lens don't exist
4) the intensity of radiowave sources would violate the ISL in positive way
5) for microwaves the Sunyaev-Zheldowitch effect doesn't exist
6) the remote galaxies shrink with time, not expand
7) for radiowaves the pressure of radiation is negative
Which other theory predicts this? Consider the point 1) for example - this is how the waves are dispersing at the water surface. The waves of wavelength larger than the capillary waves are dispersing toward longer wavelengths, the waves of shorter wavelengths are shrinking their wavelength even more:
http://www.aether...ples.jpg
Why the light waves couldn't behave in the same way?
beelize54
1.3 / 5 (16) Apr 25, 2011"..When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him..."
Jonathan Swift
Frankly, the citations aren't the best way, how to (dis)prove something. Which phenomena violates the dense aether model of vacuum in your opinion?
AkiBola
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2011ubavontuba
3.4 / 5 (19) Apr 25, 2011"if radio waves are shifted into the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, we still say that the light is redshifted "
http://coolcosmos...ift.html
"Strong lenses have been observed in radio and x-ray regimes as well."
http://en.wikiped...nal_lens
"The basic reason for the small amplitude of this effect is that gravitational lensing preserves surface brightness density. In the case of discrete sources, this sort of effect can result in magnification, but it's not something that will induce anisotropies in a uniform background."
http://home.fnal....ect.html
Need I go on?
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2011beelize54
1 / 5 (11) Apr 25, 2011OK, where's the boundary of the "red-shift" concept, after then? Where is the wavelength of the "red"? If infrared waves are shifted into the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, can we still say, that the light is redshifted?
ubavontuba
2.9 / 5 (18) Apr 25, 2011Your "predictions" are WRONG and you're a MORON.
S_Bilderback
not rated yet Apr 25, 2011This article doesn't do much to express non-Newtonian physics as I see.
Kedas
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2011(just trying to say it without using 'time')
I don't see how they plan to explain the speed of time based on your relative speed.
I don't buy it.
S_Bilderback
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2011pauljpease
5 / 5 (14) Apr 25, 2011I'm sorry, but you haven't mathematically defined your aether wave theory, so who knows what violates it? That's like asking what observation violates string theory... Impossible to answer because string theory is not rigorously defined.
beelize54
1 / 5 (14) Apr 25, 2011For example, string theory is using Lorentz symmetry postulate (of relativity) and the existence of extradimensions. Which it the logically flawed combination, because the extradimensions would manifest itself just with Lorentz symmetry violation. So we can say safely, string theory is fringe theory and it cannot lead into distinct solution, because it's based on the logically inconsistent postulate set. And you needn't to derive any equation for being able to recognize it.
ubavontuba
3.3 / 5 (16) Apr 25, 2011Why do you insist on continually making such a fool of yourself?
"Anyone who thinks they're important is usually just a pompous moron who can't deal with his or her own pathetic insignificance and the fact that what they do is meaningless and inconsequential."
- William Thomas
MadLintElf
2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2011Isn't time what we percieve as the expansion of the universe?
If the universe was not expanding, it wouldn't exist. It's an effect caused by motion, not actually a dimension.
Article is very interesting!
B2
beelize54
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2011beelize54
1 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2011CSharpner
5 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2011"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff."
One of my favorite, all-time sci-fi quotes. From the "Blink" episode. My favorite sci-fi episode of all sci-fi shows.
beelize54
1 / 5 (11) Apr 25, 2011beelize54
1 / 5 (11) Apr 25, 2011ubavontuba
2.7 / 5 (14) Apr 25, 2011A blueshift is any decrease in wavelength (increase in frequency); the opposite effect is referred to as redshift.
http://en.wikiped...lueshift
But this doesn't change the fact that your prediction is wrong.
Radio galaxies redshift:
"The Spitzer High Redshift Radio Galaxy Survey"
http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.1385
So you're still a moron.
spacester
4 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2011beelize54
1 / 5 (11) Apr 25, 2011http://hyperphysi...ngth.gif
beelize54
1 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2011http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4956
In this case the mainstream physics recognized quite correctly, they appear larger, because their light is blurred with the CMBR noise in the same way, like the distant lights observed through fog. The question only is, why the red shift isn't explained with dispersion in the same way?
But recently we are observed many well developed galaxies in the Hubble deep field, which excludes the possibility, such galaxies could evolve during Big Bang. If we have galaxies older than the visible part of Universe and the red shift, then the tired light model is the only feasible explanation.
beelize54
1 / 5 (11) Apr 25, 2011The atemporal universe concept of A. Sorli or Whitehead is not new in physics at all. These atemporal ideas we can find in work of J.A. Wheeler, D. Bohm, J. Barbour, P.Yourgrau, Dennis A. Wright, P. Lynds, Ron Larther and many others. But I'm still missing the testable predictions with atemporal approach. The explanation of Zenos paradox is not enough, because we have other interpretations, which are explaining it as well and they even lead into testable predictions (compare the quantum Zeno's effect)
http://en.wikiped...o_effect
We can say, whole the quantum mechanics is basically atemporal, because the immediate values of wave function aren't observable directly from outside of quantum objects. Therefore in quantum world the atemporal model of universe is of much larger relevance, than in relativity world.
Logimorph
1 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2011hard2grep
4.5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2011beelize54
1 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2011beelize54
1 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2011beelize54
1 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2011hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2011Frajo's 'Einwand'(objection?)is justified. A concept provoking a new 'order' will find experimentation the perfect justification to orphan or adapt this birth.
altino
1 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2011Can someone imagine a clock inside a clock? Yes. But they are 2 Clocks and not one Right? Space has a lot of clocks. Observers exist in their own Space Dimension with their own clocks but they can sync with other clocks. Let them exist in their own Space Dimension at a given clock frequency and let them travel without Time in Time.
How does this Sound? :)
Raygunner
5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2011x646d63
4 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2011I've been arguing for years that our universe does not include any time component. Instead, we care about ; or the difference between two observed states of the universe. Our universe is 3D+.
Bigblumpkin36
not rated yet Apr 25, 2011Moebius
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2011All I can say is I told you so.
Moebius
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2011I've also said: there aren't lots of dimensions as string theory requires, time is not the 4th dimension, you can time travel to the future but only by existing in every intermediate instant, wormholes may exist but will only allow spatial travel not time travel and the universe is a sphere
ubavontuba
3.1 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2011What the heck are you going on about here? Are you suggesting time moves backwards for radio waves? How could we detect them then?
"In free space, all electromagnetic waves (radio, light, X-rays, etc.) obey the inverse-square law"
http://en.wikiped...pagation
What now? The SZ effect is all about microwaves.
"The SunyaevZel'dovich effect is the result of high energy electrons distorting the cosmic microwave background radiation through inverse Compton scattering,"
http://en.wikiped...h_effect
Really? That's SO-O-O dumb! Maybe you think you can put one in your pocket?
cont...
ubavontuba
3.2 / 5 (18) Apr 25, 2011So much for you predictions...
My prediction is: You will continue to write mindless drivel about aether. Let's see who is right.
brodix
1.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2011Humanity treats time as a linear progression from past to future because it is foundational to the narrative function that is the basis of serial cause and effect rationality. The problem is physically modeling it as such. It is not that the present moves from past to future, but that the changing configuration of what exists, turns the future into the past. We don't travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. The present is the constant and it is the events which come and go. Physically, past and future do not exist, because the same energy is just changing configurations. As an effect of motion, time, rate of change, is similar to temperature, level of activity.
Quantum mechanics uses an external, absolute clock because it admits simultaneity and so the process goes from past simultaneous configurations to future ones.
brodix
1 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2011If we were to eliminate the external clock from QM and just consider time as the dynamic, it is the collapsing of future probabilities which leads to current actualities. While all input into any event exists prior to its occurrence, the lightcone of this input only comes together at the point of occurrence. So while all physical laws deciding the outcome are deterministic, the total input cannot be known prior to the occurrence, so it is still probabilistic. Even if there were a method of faster than light communication to gather knowledge of all input prior to an occurrence, then the same faster than light potential could exist for information affecting that outcome and so the problem would be repeated.
frajo
5 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2011rwinners
4 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2011SamuraiDrifter
5 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2011^Talk about an unfalsifiable belief...
ZephirAWT
Apr 26, 2011ZephirAWT
Apr 26, 2011ZephirAWT
Apr 26, 2011Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2011Changing the direction you travel in time is another and if you had said that I would have rated you five instead of a one.
Ethelred
ZephirAWT
Apr 26, 2011SpikeTheHuman
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2011I was thinking the same thing -- all the useful results from Minkowski space come from treating the time and space coordinates differently.
froarty
not rated yet Apr 26, 2011ZephirAWT
Apr 26, 2011Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Apr 26, 2011Yes,.... he defined 'phenomenal reality' as that conceptualized,... i.e subjected to a-priori intuitions of mind, ...space, time, causality. An intuitive understanding of reality necessarily implies that is has been conformed within this conceptual structure. This may be an issue wrt intuitive understanding, because unconceprualized reality (noumenal reality),... may not contain these a-prior subjective artifacts of the mind, yet observations still must be made consistent for science to make predictions. Enter Bohr, who in effect rediscovered Kant as the essential point of the Copenhagen interpretation.
LariAnn
3 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2011For more of my thoughts on this:
http://fractalica...onos.htm
Pyle
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2011@Ethelred:
What about Godel's CTLs? Although I guess you aren't really changing direction as much as pushing forward back. Hmmm, I'm going hungry.
ubavontuba
2.8 / 5 (13) Apr 26, 2011"The appearance of tachyons is a potentially lethal problem for any theory"
http://en.wikiped...ensation
And you didn't answer the question: "How could we detect them then?" ...as we detect the CMBR but tachyons are undetectable.
The CMBR consists of ordinary thermal radiation (like the hot air in your brain).
Idiot. Electromagnetic waves move at one speed relative to any observer (the speed of light).
Define, "fast."
Yeah, there's an "instability" here alright (sarcasm).
ubavontuba
2.7 / 5 (12) Apr 26, 2011"The faintest galaxies visible with the Hubble Space Telescope were only a few billion light years from us when they emitted their light. This means that very distant galaxies look much larger than you would normally expect as if they were only about 2 or 3 billion light years from us"
http://www.atlaso...ift.html
And your reference was written by a schoolteacher and a geologist (not cosmologists).
Drivel. Photons generally don't interact, except at very high energies (gamma-gamma physics).
Idiot. The CMBR is thermal radiation (photons).
Idiot. The GZK is in regards to high energy cosmic rays, not the low energy CMBR.
http://en.wikiped...in_limit
ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2011...No? Imagine that!
This is an example of a hyper-dimensional point of view. Your water spider is not in situ with the waves, but is above the waves. Therefore, your analogy fails.
brodix
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2011I wonder whether the the conceptual problem isn't non-linear, chaotic systems. There is the same statistical behavior, based on a lack of clear reductionistic linear cause and effect, but change in scalar input, such as energy, complexity, instability, etc. being a factor.
brodix
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2011Is time the basis of motion, or motion the basis of time?
If you want to derive time from motion, all you really need is change of configuration, but how do you derive motion from time?
Time is deduced from measurements of motion. What exactly is time? Entropy? Change? Duration? Fourth dimension?
We perceive the present as moving from past events to future ones, but we also perceive the sun as traveling across the sky. It took awhile to understand how this process worked. It should be noted that epicycles were extremely mathematically precise. The problem was conceiving a physical explanation for why they were so effective.
So all I'm saying is that the present doesn't move, the events do.
Pyle
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2011But to your point, huh? Relativity wreaked havoc on time. Godel created a consistent solution within the EFE where CTL's could exist, and further, that one could travel one of these loops with the proper technology. "Hey, here's my past!"
In order for these researchers to be correct they need to address time in general relativity, specifically the implication that CTL's can exist in a consistent solution to the EFE.
@uba: Unfortunately Zephir can't be so easily dismissed. Good try though. (On the fermion point, I believe he is calling the particle-antiparticle pairs fermions not the CMBR photons. But he talks in circles so who knows.) I am anxious to see his replies.
yyz
5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2011"http://www.atlaso...ift.html
And your reference was written by a schoolteacher and a geologist (not cosmologists)."
The "Atlas of the Universe" site was (AFAIK) created and maintained (at least up to 2006) by Richard Powell, a British astrophysicist: http://www.atlaso.../me.html
Pretty cool site, too.
ZephirAWT-beelize54 wrote:
"But recently we are observed many well developed galaxies in the Hubble deep field, which excludes the possibility, such galaxies could evolve during Big Bang. If we have galaxies older than the visible part of Universe and the red shift, then the tired light model is the only feasible explanation."
Even though these observations have been explained to him, in some detail, here is yet another claim of objects in the universe OLDER than the universe.
Go figure.
MichaelT
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2011functionsofnature.com
check it out.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2011X4 = ict, time t cannot be X4. Time t is only a component of X4 that we obtain with clocks. With clocks we measure numerical order of change in space: this is time t.
Yours Amrit
What is Space-time ?
http://www.youtub...QBG2eouQ
MichaelT
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2011Understanding Time
functionsofnature.com/time1.html
VestaZ
Apr 26, 2011VestaZ
Apr 26, 2011brodix
2 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2011The math describing relativity is accurate. The problem is when we attach a physical description to it and come up with warping spacetime, wormholes, blocktime, etc.
The math behind epicycles was also quite accurate. It was just when they tried to develop a physical theory to explain it and came up with giant cosmic gearwheels.
Ask yourself, when you pour a cup of coffee and eventually drink it; did you travel some meta-physical dimension from pouring it to finishing it, or did the event of your pouring it recede into the past, as you eventually consumed it?
Is there some physically real dimension of time, along which the present moves, or is it a changing configuration of what exists, such that each event recedes into the past, as the configuration of what exists changes? If you allow change in the present, then measures of duration are relative to physical context.
Pyle
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2011Now, if you are referring to the problem with finding the physical "cause" of relativity, that is where if these guys are right we would need to adjust GR since it allows for CTLs and the like.
The rest of what you say is just babble.
VestaZ
Apr 26, 2011Jotaf
5 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2011You're just replacing God's loop with infinite recursion. I sure hope the Universe's call stack is huge! Unless it features some form of tail-recursion optimization, which is... you guessed it, a loop.
Jotaf
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2011I understand thought that the concept may be more useful in cases where you can follow a chain of events forward and end up where you started -- closed time-like curves and the like -- but I thought existing theories of manifolds were already able to cope with that (being no expert on Riemannian geometry and its cousins).
frajo
5 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2011VestaZ=VestaR=Zephyr=...
Why don't you join Hartwig Thim?
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2011Yeah, I know. I've seen others try and likewise fail. That's why I think he's a chatbot. I suspect that not even a completely insane person could learn as little as he has in the years he's been posting here. I was just venting some long held frustration. I really liked knocking down his "predictions" (it wasn't very hard to do).
I suspect as much too, but the CMBR (that we detect) is entirely made of thermal radiation (photons). If he wants to prove their source is ZPE, he's going to have to prove it locally.
Aint that the truth!
Why? It's just more of the same. When I really stump him, he just ignores those parts and carries on as if his errors don't exist.
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2011Thank you.
Right. That was my reference, not Zephir's. But I can see how you might get confused by the way I put the text together. The quote above the atlas link was from the atlas. My sentence below it referred to an earlier post of Zephir's.
I love the atlas as it's well done, and layman accessible.
Zephir's stupid reference (written by the schoolteacher and geologist) was this one:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4956
Right. That's why I'm hoping my responses to his "predictions" will slow him down a little. They're reference-able and absolute proof his "theory" is useless and meaningless.
ubavontuba
3.1 / 5 (15) Apr 27, 2011"Hyperdimensional physics is not taught in any recognized institution of learning anywhere in the world."
http://en.wikiped..._physics
To which particle/antiparticle pairs do you refer?
That's because you're the only one living in your own little world.
How would you know? You've never tried one.
I gave you every chance to explain the value of your "theory" and explain how it works. You admitted your "theory" was useless! And, explain that it works by using other theories!
ubavontuba
2.8 / 5 (13) Apr 27, 2011Did you see the little 's' I added to "depend?" That's because that's proper grammar. Have you ever thought to learn proper grammar? ...no?
Not only are your posts void of any real science, they're indecipherable gobbledygook, as well.
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 27, 2011Except that the cheater will still be here under another name. I guess he was under the delusion that no one knew what was going on since we had yet to have another sockpuppet war with the rat bastard.
He behaved himself for months and now he has THREE different names on this one thread. That is what we get for thinking he might have changed.
So whichever moderator that banned VestaZ deserves a cheer. Of course we would like to give THREE cheers for three bannings. But beelize54 is still here and ZephirAWT is still here with rubbish about wave on water and the usual ludicrous claims of being a genius because he is picked on while proving with each post that he is just plain wrong.
Ethelred
dnatwork
not rated yet Apr 27, 2011stealthc, I thought you were replying to my post about units of space being created/destroyed, but then you said this thing about aether, so I'm not sure. I do not bother to read most of the impenetrable aether stuff.
Anyway, I am a complete layman in physics and math, but I get that the popping in and out is more metaphor than real. At that level, though, it works to get the concept across.
yyz
5 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2011Apologies for my "Atlas of the Universe" mixup & thanks for setting me straight.
But yeah, I've seen him ref the Unzicker-Fabian paper multiple times (myself and others here have pointed out some of its flaws to on several occasions). What's interesting is his occasional practice of referring to some exotic, dense theoretical paper in PRL or ApJ and such and claim that it backs up some wild claim of his (this while he has already admitted that this knowledge of mathematics, especially at these levels, is lacking). Better yet, sometimes they refute his claims!
Great to hear VestaZ is history. Usually when Zeyphir's posts are getting pounded rather thoroughly, a few new sockpuppets appear to parrot his claims. This is (sometimes) followed with a period of angry posts ('your're all ignorant trolls' etc.) and then, occasionally, some blessed silence. Here's hoping for *blessed silence*. :^)
yyz
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2011Pyle
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2011@uba - regarding his replies, although fleeting (Bravo moderator!) , weren't they precious?. You deserve some credit for quoting them before they were lost forever. ;)
Dingdongdog
1 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2011If total (overall) 3-dimensional cosmic space exists as a hyperspherical geometric (spiral vortex, triple loop, double helix) standing wave which must have an endless inner series of fractal involved harmonics... Then, metric time exists solely as a measure of its change from one frequency phase order (spectrum) to another, ad infinitum down to the smallest virtual sub quantum particle-wave in the Planck volume.
When such total space collapses back to its initial ZPE singularity (i.e., its unconditioned, potential energy state prior to its initial dimensional manifestation or cosmogenesis) Its associated metric time would also cease to exist as it resolves back to its initial state of zero-change or infinite duration (i.e., potential metric cosmic Time) along with its total potential mass/energy (ZPE or angular spin momentum)... (More)
Skultch
not rated yet Apr 27, 2011Instantly convert a human into antimatter inside a vacuum chamber. I have no earthly clue as to /how/ that could possibly be done, but let's just say it's possible in principle (feel free to critique the feasibility, though). The object now travels back in time. Since parity is reversed, could it also move "backwards" in space, thus following the past trajectory of Earth through space?
Inside the vacuum chamber, put a portable, opposite, version of the device in the chamber so the time traveler can reverse the process and "stop" traveling backwards and "enter" its new "present time".
Even if this were all possible in theory, I can't imagine how the object could move backwards in time any faster than time normally proceeds. So, the further back you want to go, the longer you have to wait, I guess. Also, once travels stops; annihilations???
AmritSorli
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2011Dear Sir,
we are not replacing time with change,
we are showing time we measure with clocks is numerical order of change.
Yours Amrit
Dingdongdog
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2011Accordingly, Sorlis claim (referring to our 3-D physical space) that Time is exactly the order of events; and with clocks we measure the numerical order of material change, i.e., motion in space is entirely correct.
Its, therefore, entirely foolish to think that Time can be a dimension of physical space itself, that the arrow of time can be reversed, or that travel in time by physical beings is possible.
Obviously, while fractal involved 3-d space cannot exist without metric time (i.e., change in motion, frequency, position, force, etc.) with the first change being the initial emanation, at near infinite frequency, of the 1-d force ray (from the ZPE spin momentum singularity) that compose the initial cosmic fields... Such changes in time cannot be considered an actual linear dimension of the 3-d space itself... e.g., How can the changes in frequency of light (that determines color, etc.) be a property of the space that contains the photon waveform?
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2011I looked at your website. Are you serious? Or is it intentional word wuze? I ask because it IS word wuze. You are using words without any fact based meaning attached to them at any time. "ZPE spin momentum singularity" is about as meaningless a noise as I have seen on this site. Even the AWITBS crap has more relevance to reality.
Words exist to communicate about facts and ideas. When they are detached from the facts or the original ideas they were created to communicate about they no longer have any meaning. For instance
Spin momentum singularity has NO meaning at all in a single point. Spin in the sense of angular momentum only has reality in comparison to the rest of the universe. Without OTHER objects there is no angular momentum. GR shows this and so far the evidence supports this.
Please try to attach your concept to FACTS so they can have some meaning. Spinning out meaningless words just to fill space is a waste of time or change in terms of this article
Ethelred
AmritSorli
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2011idknow
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2011Fish can move through Water-space the same way that Heavenly-objects and space-ships can move through Space-space.
As for Time, we do move in Time (positive increments only) but not fast enough to get anywhere quickly.
Time is an element of the vector[] to determine the relative position of one object to another. It cant be absolute bc we dont know where we are; we have no knowledge of what is where.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2011Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2011Ethelred
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2011An experiment which proves duration of an event is not a physical quantity. You walk on the street 3,6 km. You need 1 hour to pass distance of 3,6km. Distance is physical quantity, duration is not because you do not walk in time; time is only a numerical order of your walk. 1 hour is 3600 seconds. Each step takes 1 second. 3600 seconds is a number that shows you numerical order of your motion on the distance of 3,6km. Same is with the fish moving in water.
We do not remove time from physics, we just give it right meaning based on experimental facts.
hush1
3 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2011Expect discourse. Our "walk back home", in all fairness to your concept and point of view, deserves a length of duration,
that one can safely assume, will last longer than the path Einstein and Gödel took walking home.
Emphasize the "Race course" paradox and your solution. De-emphasizing 'time' and emphasize the 'mathematical sense' of numerical order - an intuitive approach that helps children of all ages(!), to grasp this.
Even mathematics harbors 'primitive notion' - the last defense in human reasoning.
A Wikipedia excerpt:
"In mathematics, logic, and formal systems, a primitive notion is an undefined concept. In particular, a primitive notion is not defined in terms of previously ..."
Pyle
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2011@Amrit: Three questions.
(1)What are your thoughts on CTLs being allowed in GR as shown by Godel?
(2)Do you still believe, and if so how do you support? (ref 58J-2010-04-xx-01):
(3)Also, regarding gravity, without gravity waves, does your theory lead to FTL gravitational effects?
So you know, I have a real problem with the two times in GR. My belief (intuitive only) is that CTLs are an artifact of the incompleteness of GR and that an enhancement of the theory is needed. (Godel pun intended, though everyone hates it when I do it.)
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2011I didn't really care. I had not said a single word to him or about him. I was trying to find out why he thinks otherwise. He PMed me before that strange reply to my reply to Dingdong. Dingdong seems to living in his own special world. I am going to copy that reply to the other thread he is infesting.
I thought Amrit was an co-author but these are not his first posts here as is the case most of the time that a co-author chimes in.
AmritSorli
Member since: January 28, 2011, 9:48 am
His website
http://www.timele...rse.net/
It has a header image that does remind me of DingDongDog's website and that is not in his favor. Neither are quite the same as Electric Universe fans but there is an unfortunate similarity of abstract imagery.>>
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2011I don't see any value of simply replacing time with change. Change can't occur without time or time can't occur without change, though I am not sure about the latter. If there is no difference in the math except the labels why the effort to claim there is no time?
Vs merely a numerical order of TIME. One is a meaningless replacement and the other fits human thinking.
Pyle if you saw my posts on MultiVerse and Math concepts you will note that in those time is just a numerical order. Which I find disturbing but I can live with it since it explains why something instead of nothing.
I think it is silly to replace the word TIME with CHANGE for no increase in understanding, or an improvement in the math or any predictions proceeding from the idea.
Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2011Ethelred
Bigblumpkin36
5 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2011frajo
4 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2011Has there ever been a definition of time which did not refer to the "numerical order of change"?
What's the _physical_ difference?
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2011Well neither do I understand that non word. I recommend rereading before posting and using a spell checker. I write in Notepad++ and I have the spell check plugin installed. The dictionary is old and often annoying but it does help and it extensible. It no longer bugs me about 'MultiVerse' for instance.
That is just playing games with words. Neither space nor time are physical quantities if you want to go that route.
Saying it does not make it so. The same exact reasoning or rather bald statement works for time.
More and I hate the 1000 character destruction of discourse.
frajo
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2011Have a look at the current table of contents: physicsessays.org/resource/1/phesem
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2011Playing games with words is a bad sign. Words describe facts for the purposes of communication. If all you can do is change the words you are not dealing with facts and are trying to use Proof by Definition to AVOID possibly inconvenient facts.
'Time is physical quantity, distance is not because you do not walk in space; position is only a numerical order of your walk through time.'
See what happens if you just replace words instead of dealing with facts?
'We do not remove position from physics, we just give it right meaning based on experimental facts.'
And again a simple replacement of time based vs your position based thinking shows that you are simply playing word games.
More
frajo
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2011Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2011Either way they are just dimensions. Changing the labels without something of value coming from it is silly.
Ethelred
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2011"Two contrasting viewpoints on time... One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence... The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure... within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled."
http://en.wikiped..._physics
Personally, I subscribe to the former view. The reason being; the only numerical sequence of events time is really tied to, is the speed of light. That is, every other sequence of events is relative to the speed of light, as observed locally.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2011there is no a single experimental data time has physical existence. Do not understand me wrong, I do not say as Barbour: "time is an illusion", for me time exist but only as a math quantity.
ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2011rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2011ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2011rawa1
1 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2011hush1
1.7 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2011A spatial point is a primitive notion.
No one can dismiss this primitive notion's 'success'.
A human's ability to imagine, allows conjectures and assumptions, specifically, that, which we have left undefined, eventually found an understandable definition.
Given time. (Pun intended. lol :) )
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2011The primitive notion is an oxymoron. Either it's not (physically) spatial or it's not a point.
But the development of concepts which are based on this primitive notion was indeed highly successful.
frajo
5 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2011hush1
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2011I see your point. :)
I posted wikipedia's first statement about a geometric point without editing the obvious misnomer.
Yes, we agree to this notion's success. This abstract, undefined notion reminds me of a 'real', 'physical' analogy from our everyday world - the wheel. Also, an uncontested 'success'.
Perhaps the wheel began as a primitive notion (disregarding the oxymoron content) as well.
Pyle
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2011Anyway, this idea of time being a numerical order of change is nice, but it doesn't deal with relativity so it seems pretty 19th century, as everyone has been saying. uba nailed it I think.
@Eth: regarding Amrit:My thought is Amrit was rushing to Zephir's aid according to the fringe theory honor code. Similar to a dog owner feeling kinship to another's dog.
Pyle
4 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2011orgon
not rated yet Apr 28, 2011Dingdongdog
1 / 5 (1) Apr 28, 2011Relative to what?
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2011No.
Lots.
Those statements are wrong because Time is a property of SPACE_TIME not space. Time is not relative to speed because it is space-time. A single property with four dimensions.
Yes. Its the AWITBS guy. Zephyr. No doubt about it. He is an idiot. He proved in this one post.
Sorry this the only reply I have time for till I get back from work. Around midnight local. Disneyland daylight savings time. Not Disney World. The original.
Ethelred
Pyle
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2011I'm with uba on this one. Time is relative. I don't think there is confusion in this statement. Yeah, yeah, yeah: time, space, space-time. Distance is relative too. So there Ethelred, thpppt! The measurement of spacetime, albeit length or duration, is relative to the frame of the observer.
Correct me if you want, but because GR works, the article's theory is bunk until they address it.
@Eth: btw, I loved your correction of "idknow" directed at Amrit. It was a commenter's nick, not a statement by AS. Funny stuff.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2011AmritSorli
1 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2011Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2011I am with Einstein on this one. It is all one thing.
Julie Andrews. And that is NOT a non-sequitor.
Movement in Space-time has a fixed total. More movement in one means less in the other. Not thinking about it this way may be what is causing you guys to argue about it being relative or not. The total movement in all four dimensions is always the same. And yes it is relative. If nothing else movement in space-time is relative to the Universe as a whole. But you always move in space-time not just one dimension.
More
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2011What I was trying to do is get people to think about space-time as a whole and not separate elements. Sometimes if you can change point of view you gain in insight. Sometimes you start haring off into the wilderness and never return. See Oliver K Manuel for an example.
More
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2011Deep Impact data won't make a dent, scientist says
July 1, 2005
http://www.physor...899.html
And not one comment was made. Perhaps they weren't allowed in 2005. Heck he has TWO articles.
Scientist says neutron stars, not black holes, at center of galaxies
December 1, 2005
http://www.physor...658.html
More
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2011Ethelred
Moebius
1 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2011Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2011No. First it is speed, a scalar, and not velocity, a vector. Second both speed through space and time are relative to observers or the Universe as a whole or your point of origin if it is YOUR speed that you are dealing with.
Well anything with mass OR without mass.
Inertial or accelerating.
Tell that to a photon in the process of leaving a Black Hole boundary area. It will undergo relativistic redshift.
Relativity is NOT limited to SR. GR effects EVERYTHING including light.
Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2011Should be
Now if only it would tell me -WHEN I- leave out words.
I didn't even do it on purpose and I was LOOKING for the damned mistake. I do it so bloody often. Its not a new problem for me either, that is my brain isn't dissolving. I have been doing this since I started on Maximum PC's Comport in 2000.
I am tempted to buy Dragon.
Ethelred
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2011AmritSorli
1 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2011Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2011The redshift effect is still relativistic and NOT Newtonian.
It the Universe is more than 4D, space-time IS 4D not 3D, then any instruments we make are inherently more than 4D. The key is making instruments that can detect that. We can detect the curvature of space for instance. That is likely either occurring in a yet one more dimension or there is some kind of granularity of space and those grains are of variable size.
PMs are for personal discussions. I told you that already. This is not a personal discussion so quit trying to take something that should be public private. It is a complete waste of time for everyone here.
Want to discuss how to avoid that surprised look you have in your photo on your website then I can see that as being something to deal with privately. The science should stay here in public.
And I do have an answer to the photo if your interested.
Ethelred
bukh
not rated yet Apr 29, 2011That said: - In order better to understand the concept of timeless Universe - IMO it should be stressed that Timeless Universe must refer to "Noumenal World" out from which "Fenomenal World" is being "extracted or interfered with" by human mind and translated into this vivid impression of a "Real Physical World". In this perspective Noumenal Universe is timeless - and time can be defined as the order of material change in physical world - HOWEVER nothing is being said about how to define MATERIAL CHANGE ! What is changing ? IMO it is the mind (the observer) that integrates the "timeless events". This implicate that Time become a mind-related quality.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2011The existing temporal view in physics sees material changes taking place in space-time as a fundamental arena of the universe where time, past-present-future, is seen as the fourth dimension of space-time. This temporal view is the result of experiencing material changes within the framework of linear time, past-present-future, which is the fundamental psychological model of the mind through which an observer experiences the material world. In universe there is no linear time as a dimension of space. Quantum space is 3D (Planck Volume is 3D) and time t is a numerical mathematical order of material changes in a 3D space. This atemporal view is closer to the real physical world as the temporal view. It gives us a more adequate picture of physical reality; it is based on the observer that is conscious of his/her psychological time.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2011mind can not solve that
consciousness yes
by discovering inner psychological time
in a few years this view on time will enter "main stream".
Skultch
4 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2011Then explain why GPS satellites work /perfectly/ when they compensate for 3D+T spacetime.
Jotaf
5 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2011I'd like to ask you one question. I get that you regard time as an ordering and not an axis through which particles travel. But locally, from the point of view of a particle and in its vicinity, taking that ordering of events that it encounters (t1 < t2 < t3...), shouldn't that total ordering implicitly define a field?
http://en.wikiped...ed_field
And so, conceptually it defines a space, a 4th dimension.
The question of whether such a dimension is "instanced" and fixed already (static Universe) or whether our Universe's rules destructively "update and replace" space as events happen is more of a metaphysical one (ie, "implementation details") and can't possibly be answered, so I don't mean to go there.
yoda55
1.3 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2011Can you elucidate? Consider human conception. Prior to the conception, ovum and sperm occupy two unique spatial locations (non-coincident). The sperm could pass through a specified location (at one time). And, the ovum can pass the same location earlier (or later). While within parents, the two cannot occupy the same location simultaneously (without a consequential mess). Yet, once fertilized, the two do occupy the same location.
The distance between each of the ovuma and sperm (and the location of interest) can reduce value magnitude to zero. But, while in the two parents, the zero distance cannot be simultaneous. At fertilization, they do. I argue that distance is not the same as time, and time is independent of it. The 3D+T does exist as 4D universe. [I postulate another dimension - thought. Encompassing reality or fantasy, time separates.]
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2011All long as "t" (or 'spacetime')is, (or remains) a geometrical entity, I really don't care what my and/or anyone's psychology tells me.
There are no true paradoxes. The description for all (human) languages is: Necessary, insufficient, and incomplete.
Of course, we extend our vocabulary. We imagine universal truths, meanings,understanding, TOEs and GUTs.
We listen to music as well.
Without translation.
brodix
1 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2011I guess I tuned out after this, but the conversation continues. We still exist in the present, but the earlier posts are fading into the past. The present doesn't move along some external dimension, it simply changes form and those areas with higher levels of activity change faster than those areas with lower levels of activity. Acceleration and gravity will slow rates of change. Probability precedes actuality. Future events become past events. This effect of time is relativistic, but it is still contained by what is physical.
brodix
1 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2011AmritSorli
1 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2011AmritSorli
1 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2011The combination of these two relativistic effects means that the clocks on-board of each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 µs per day.
(formalism (2) of Selleri t'=t per Lotentz factor, form (3) see literature). All this can be described in 3D space.
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2011And the fact that the math works.
Nonsense. The mind is biological and chemical. It functions according to the laws of the Universe and it evolved to fit those laws. Psychology is the study of the mind and NOT a process of the mind.
Nonsense. The math that uses that idea WORKS.
Or 10D or 11D or whatever is the working flavor this week.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2011Possibly but you have yet to show WHY it is.
The math is still the same. I went over the concept before. Many times. Long before this article. The world still works out as having time to those that live in it.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2011Here is reality for Koans. There aren't for reasoning. They are for STOPPING reasoning so it doesn't get in the way of meditation. Usually they are STUPID ideas like the Sound of One Hand Clapping. Eternity does NOT equal now.
It just did. It was nonsense.
Same thing. Or rather in humans consciousness and mind are just two words we use for the functioning of the brain. They are emergent properties and there is really no difference between the two words.
You discover the way the brain works when it is focused vs bored.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2011Fuzzy thinking is not science and treating time as a product of a spiritual mind instead something that a CHEMICAL brain experiences is pretty fuzzy thinking.
Not quite. Space-time is what it is described in. They are about time and space and therefor 3d space is insufficient. And in a 5D space-time gravity supposedly falls right out of the math. Which is why 5 or more dimensions are so popular in efforts to link quantum physics and GR.
Ethelred
brodix
3 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2011It's a question of whether time is a dimension along which events exist, aka. blocktime, or is time the rate of change, due to constant activity.
The difference is that in the first, the events and this dimension, are the constant, while the point of the present moves along them. With the second, the present is the constant and it is the events which coalesce out of probabilities and are replace by the process, such that it is the events going future to past.
While the entire basis of history and cause and effect logic are the direction of past to future, in order to create a physical theory to explain it, relativity uses the correlation of distance and duration to argue space and time are equivalent and the present is an illusion. While QM uses an external absolute change of instant measurements. The result is by projecting a deterministic past onto a probabilistic future, they end up in multiworlds.
On the other hand, if time is simply a collapse of probabilities, as the
brodix
3 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2011Also it retains free will, because if time goes past to future and we only exist at the moment of the present, then we can neither change the past, or affect the future, but if time is an effect of motion, then our input is integral to the events being created.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2011A. Time measured with clocks is the fourth dimension of space. Space and time are physical realities in which we live.
B. Time measured with clocks is merely a numerical order of changes that take place in space. We live in space only, not in time.
Vote here: http://www.timele...erse.net
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2011This is still living in time. A numerical oder of change that fits the physical laws of our universe is indistinguishable from time. It is not in our head that light has specific frequency of oscillation per unit of numerical order.
A and B are indistinguishable. Though A, as stated has the advantage of fitting GR and B is simply the product of you not understanding that a numerical order of change is still the same as A and thus the only thing wrong is your insistence on avoiding SR and GR which have space-time.
Now I must point out that you are evading what I say and ask.
What is gained? Please stop avoiding the question.
Ethelred
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2011A numerical order of change that fits the physical laws of our universe is ((indistinguishable) (from)) time.
bluehigh
2.7 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2011Quantum_Conundrum
1.4 / 5 (7) Apr 30, 2011In the ancient world philosphers considered time as it's own dimension, with the notion that there is a beginning of time and an end of time.
This was well before Newton.
Given the fact that Newton was also an avid Bible scholar, he may have even gotten many of his ideas from the Bible.
Isaacsname
1 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2011Time is not a spatial dimension, but a merely a transitory value assigned to objects moving in relation to each other in spacial dimensions ?
FrankHerbert
2.6 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2011Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (7) Apr 30, 2011Why ever did you decide to bother me in the first place? I had not said one thing to you when you PMed me? That is another question you have ignored several times.
Ethelred
brodix
2 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2011The foundation which any social organization requires is a group narrative. Polytheistic societies were generally competing groups of people, owing allegiance to differing ideals, as well as recognized powerful outside forces. Those most focused on one deity proved far more political effective. There is a necessary tendency for such identifications to become increasingly hermetic and deny any reality that is not also centered around their deity. That such belief systems develop idiosyncrasies is not a bug, but a feature, as it separates true believers from those harboring doubts. The original form of crowd control, to get people pointed in and marching in the same direction. Remember that it was Constantine deciding that the cross made a very good war totem which transformed Christianity from a popular anti-authoritarian cult to an official state religion.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2011Our idea is time has only math status, time is a mathematical numerical order of change in space.
For me difference is essential,
if you do not see difference here, fine for me.
Yours Amrit
orgon
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2011AmritSorli
1 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2011daywalk3r
3 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2011When you travel through space, you also travel through time, and vice-versa. And as much as you can not travel a negative distance, you neither can travel "back" in time.
Everything in the Universe is in constant motion - there is no such thing as an "absolute standstill". Even though some of the outcomes of classic GR and using its maths might suggest otherwise - the problem is mostly not within the concept, but with its application. You have to treat space and time as one entity, and only then you can understand that the actual absolutes (zero/infinity) will actually never be reached. At least not within a sub-group of the absolute (the Universe).
And as such, I also have to jump on the boat which suggests that there is no separate entity "time". If, then only space-time.
Howgh
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2011Which is what I was doing by stating "time is a fundamental property of space." In other words, space and time go hand-in-hand (hence: "spacetime").
ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 30, 2011As the speed of light constant is a fundamental property of spacetime, and clock rates are inextricably tied to the locally observed speed of light in a vacuum, time itself is a fundamental property of spacetime.
Otherwise, processes which change numerical sequences of events (like heating, or freezing), or even change the propagation speed of light (like through various materials), would have an effect on locally observed time.
http://en.wikiped...ow_light
ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 30, 2011ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2011The implication is: Without time, the concept of the six degrees of freedom essentially becomes meaningless - hence 3-D vector space itself, becomes meaningless.
"Geometrically, the degrees of freedom can be interpreted as the dimension of certain vector subspaces."
http://en.wikiped...m_vector
eric96
1 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2011If there is NO motion, or if the Universe is motionless, then there is no time. Therefore, time is simply a bi-product of motion and not an independent entity.
Solved.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2011Vreejack
not rated yet Apr 30, 2011eric96
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2011Very simply, it doesn't matter whether time is a physical dimension or not. It wouldn't turn the world of physics upside town if it wasn't. Very very little in physics depends on time. Even though some equations use time, those equations don't depend on time; they could replace time with something else or rather more frequently make due without time at all. "Time is simply an illusion derived from motion. If nothing could move, there would be no time. Of course, human beings being creatures of evolution could argue time goes on even if there is no motion, but this is a contradiction for time implies change and without motion there can be no change. Therefore, time is simply the bi-product of change, and not an independent entity."
Eric Laferriere
eric96
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2011You need to exercise your imagination, for it is as good as a horrible reader unable to imply or properly understand a statement and insult others just for the sake of it.
marraco
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2011Each gauge result, each measure, is the position of something.
Any other thing is just an abstraction.
Electromagnetic fields, mass, energy, time, are all abstractions.
Force is not even correctly defined. Force is defined in terms of mass, and mass in term of forces they dont exist its all geometry.
eric96
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2011Correct. Geometry is what accounts for all differences from any entity to another entity. Whether they be objects, forces etc... Geometry is what makes unlimited creation possible. The universe is geometry. Never though of it that way, but it becomes more and more evident the more I contemplate about it.
Caliban
4 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2011I'm sure there are plenty of other assumed impossibilities that will be possible with this new understanding, but that example came to mind first.
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 30, 2011How is my response to you an "insult?" Do you think everyone, who simply disagrees with your point of view, insults you? Really?
Arrogant much?
All I did was take your stated concept of time to the logical extreme. Is it my fault your own logic fails in the extreme? I think not.
And in reply to your derogatory PM:
"Anyone who thinks they're important is usually just a pompous moron who can't deal with his or her own pathetic insignificance and the fact that what they do is meaningless and inconsequential."
- William Thomas
brodix
1 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2011The reason we equate time with space is because we really don't understand time, so we equate it with motion through space. It defines our life, yet seems ethereal. The future is unknown and the past seems both objectively precise and subjectively fragmentary. Is it coming, or going?
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 30, 2011ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 30, 2011ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (11) Apr 30, 2011hush1
1 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2011Conceivably after having read the following statement:
"Since the spacetime metric has no explicit time dependence, once an observer has crossed the cosmological horizon, observers closer in take its place. This ...process of ...an exponential expansion of spacetime."
"This steady-state exponentially expanding spacetime is called a de Sitter space, and to sustain it there must be a cosmological constant, a vacuum energy proportional to everywhere. In this case, the equation of state is p=-rho."
Wikipedia: Inflation(cosmology)
Subtitle;
Space expands. (Directly after subtitle 'Overview'.)
It is not as if this suggestion - that space-time has no time dimension - has not been already been discussed long ago.
A discussion to reduce the ambiguity of the meaning of words to express a concept clearer, is welcome. Whether the attempt is successful or not successful, is secondary.
Perhaps Amrit is not aware this is not new.
ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 30, 2011Good luck with that.
ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 30, 2011Generally, I agree with Ethelred's suggestion that this appears to be little more than and argument over semantics. However, if there is some particular value to thinking of time in this way, I'd certainly like to be made aware of it.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Apr 30, 2011You read but don't comprehend. The claim isn't that time doesn't "exist". The claim is that time doesn't "exist" as a physical dimension.
And of course, it doesn't.
Like temperature or entropy, the concept of "time" is an emergent characteristic of a bulk collection of objects.
The fact that time has an apparent geometric relationship with space is an artifact of analysis. It need not and does not have any real geometric interpretation. The apparent geometry of space time is a contrivance which may aid in the visualization of the relationship between space and the bulk property we call time, but simply because there is a mathematical relationship between space and time that is the same as a geometric one, this doesn't require that the relationship have any true physical manifestation.
Cont...
eric96
1 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2011Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Apr 30, 2011There can be no time evolution to an empty universe.
There can be no time evolution of a universe consisting of a single particle.
The same is true even for a universe consisting of 2 particles since time must be defined relative to an evolving system and there is only one system evolving and no observer available.
Time only has meaning in a universe of 3 or more particles and even then time evolution is curious.
Consider a 1 dimensional universe of three particles A,B and O (observer). Configure the universe so that it progresses from left to right as ABO. Define that as T=0
Now allow the universe to be configured as BAO This is T=1
Cont,...
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Apr 30, 2011As the number of particles in the universe increases, it becomes increasingly difficult for a system to evolve naturally into a state it acquired earlier. So with larger systems time seems to never return to an earlier state and hence never appears to go backward.
Time is in fact governed by the same statistical properties of entropy, and this is why the entropy of large bulks strongly tends to increase over time. It does so because time is ultimately defined by the bulk characteristics of the entire universe.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Apr 30, 2011If the observer is deemed "inside" the universe, then time travel is also possible by doing the same as above. But in this instance the observer must be part of that which is being re-arranged.
By doing so however, the observer loses all memory of it's regression in time, and hence can never "experience" time travel.
You may have gone back in time just a fraction of a second ago, but you would never know it because your memory of the present was erased as the universe reconfigured itself, and the universe includes your memory of the current state.
ubavontuba
2.8 / 5 (13) Apr 30, 2011Right. This is an ad hominem and therefore unworthy of comment.
So redefine the concepts. What part, or parts, do you feel need clarification?
You're right. I don't think "my crasp" the concept of time either.
And, another immature ad hominem.
Do your parents know you're out of bed?
If you have a valid argument to make, make it - and quit with the baby tantrum.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2011On the other hand, I have seen no convincing argument preventing faster than light signaling, provided that those signals are not carried by an electric (electroweak) field.
Should physics manage to unify all fields into one, then it is likely (but not required) that there will be a common propagation speed limit to all of it's derivative components.
GenesisNemesis
4.3 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2011hush1
3.6 / 5 (5) May 01, 2011"Ah, numerical! Just one."
"Do you want time with that?!"
"Yes, please"
"Is this to go?"
"Yes"
"Next!"
:)
Chakir_Abdi
5 / 5 (2) May 01, 2011Wulfgar
not rated yet May 01, 2011Chakir_Abdi
not rated yet May 01, 2011A proper definition of time shouldn't have motion in it.
Since we observer can only experience time through motion:
For an observer observer, time is a derived from position change; dt = dx/v
For an observed ( a clock) space is derived from time change dx = vdt.
roseweed
3 / 5 (2) May 01, 2011Think of the moment just past that you spent reading the quote above. Think of the moment you are in, as you read this, and think of the moment about to transpire as you read further. It is not abstract -- we speak of "one minute ago" and "one minute from now" as if they are real physcial dimensions of flowing time. Moments we can't go back to or can't yet have, even though separated from them by miliseconds. But try to pinpoint the very instant when the future flows through the present and becomes the past in your reading of this paragraph. You can't do it. Science can't do it. Yet you will agree that this is a linear sequence of words with a beginning and an end. We succumb to the illusion that the reading of the final word in this paragraph is still in the future, and that the reading of the first word in the paragraph is now in the past.
roseweed
not rated yet May 01, 2011This is the notion that an astronaut traveling near the speed of light would age more slowly than those at rest on earth -- proven by experiment with atomic clocks on spacecraft. But it's one-way, and not really "travel."
Back-and-forth travel to the future is impossible, because there's no "future" to travel to. By whatever means, slowing down the aging process just allows one to stay young longer in the present -- the same present in which others age more rapidly. This already happens with the disease progeria, in which the aging process is accelerated. If you met a progeria-stricken child when he was one year old and only saw him again when he was eight but had aged to eighty, would you say you'd traveled to the future? How would this be any different than when a spacetime traveler returns to earth after fifty years to find he's still young and his son is an old man?
IngDutch
not rated yet May 01, 2011AmritSorli
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2011http://www.youtub...QBG2eouQ
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) May 01, 2011Except that the math is still identical thus there is no difference.
I am asking what the difference IS since YOU JUST SAID it is mathematically indistinguishable.
Since there is NO WAY to distinguish, if it cannot be distinguished mathematically then there is NO WAY to distinguish AT ALL so WHAT IS THE POINT.
Avoiding the question is not helping anyone.
Let me repeat this since you either don't understand the question or are refusing to answer it and it needs to be clear to all which it is.
More
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) May 01, 2011Those two statements are YOURS and CONTRADICTORY. It cannot have math status if it cannot be distinguished from the normal mathematics via mathematics. Indeed in that case it does NOT have a math status. It is just philosophy.
Again, I suspect that time IS just an ordered series of events. BUT I don't claim it is mathematically profound since it clearly cannot be so if it isn't falsifiable. I KNOW its just philosophy. Either you can't see that or you refuse to acknowledge it.
Here are those questions you are still evading.
Fourth time for that.
What do you think this adds to human knowledge? Especially since it isn't falsifiable.
Ethelred
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (4) May 01, 2011by gravity there is no time, by EPR there is no time, this immediate phenomena are carried directly by quantum vacuum
d = v x t (t is numerical order of motion)
hush1
1 / 5 (1) May 01, 2011English speaking commentators are going to label these wonderful words:
Pragmatism from a pragmatist.
My view of your words rejects the label of pragmatism.
Wonderful words. Yes. Pragmatic. No.
I leave this thread, with an Adage provided by a commentator that I greatly value - Frajo. Frajo pointed out that Wittgenstein stated the following Adage:
"The limits of your languages are the limits of your world."
I vouch for the translation, because that's what I do.
I translated this myself. I know Ludwig spoke perfect English.
The last test to my understanding of his words will remain
forever unanswered:
That is to ask the author of similar linguistically fluency the following:
"Are those your words?" And, The Answer MUST be:
"Yes. Those are my words. There are no better words for this language"
That is measure of human understanding. There is no greater understanding.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) May 01, 2011But I really am trying not to become a Crank on this.
I just noticed that reply to you was from ANOTHER ZephyrAWITBS sockpuppet on this thread. That is FOUR.
Ethelred
plasticpower
not rated yet May 01, 2011Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) May 01, 2011Not quite. Also the speed or more often the velocity of something.
No. See above. Velocity counts. Things have momentum.
Funny that we can measure magnetic fields and the rest.
Sure is in the next sentence.
No. No matter how many times you see someone us KG in a force calculation they aren't doing right.
Everything we know about the Universe is just MATH which covers far more than just geometry. Which is why you don't made those other errors. Math can and does include all things you said are abstractions. And much more.
Ethelred
ubavontuba
2.8 / 5 (13) May 01, 2011If motion alone represents time, why do different observers observe different clock rates, when observing the same set of numerical sequences? Is it magic?
The problem in understanding time here is, it's not your motion which sets the clock rate, but rather it is the speed of light relative to your frame of reference which sets the clock rate. Do you see? Time is about the spacetime around you, not numerical sequences of change, per se.
The rate at which the clock "ticks" is controlled by the surrounding spacetime. Therefore, they tick in spacetime.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) May 01, 2011'time does not happen via motion, motion is according to the numerical order of time'
There is no evidence supporting the first except that you claim it is that way. That latter fits the math that actually works and make more sense when dealing with time dilation in SR or GR. Thus again there is nothing in your view of things that increases our understanding.
Why? What is the value in that?
Unsupported claim.
Unsupported claim.
Or it can be ordinary time.
Will you EVER stop evading that questions?
Ethelred
ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (11) May 01, 2011Two versions of an apt quote:
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." - attributed to Mark Twain
"'Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience." - Woody Allen
Honestly, judging by form and style, I'm beginning to wonder if there's more than a casual connection between AmritSorli and Zephyr.
frajo
3.6 / 5 (5) May 01, 2011The word "emergent" implies a flow of time.
The recursive constructs of certain programming languages are spoiling clear thinking. There is no true recursive programming because every stack is finite.
Because we can handle temperatures in manifold ways. We can lower or raise temperature in certain regions of space; we can even program the temperature behavior of material objects. But we can't do so with time.
brodix
1 / 5 (1) May 01, 2011If we view the present as the constant and it is the changing configuration of this physical reality which causes future potential to coalesce into current form and then be replaced by continuous change, it is a non-linear process, much like temperature is a non-linear scale. The vector of time is effect, not cause.
On the other hand, what is space? If you had a single object and no external reference, presumably spin would still be apparent, because it would exert centrifugal force.
Space would seem to be an equilibrium state and that might be the reason for the consistancy of light.
3rdPrinciple
not rated yet May 01, 2011Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (1) May 01, 2011Relative motion just requires two particles, but would allow the determination of only 1 spatial dimension, even if there were three.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (3) May 01, 2011Can't be done. No matter how you look at it, Time is always defined in terms of the spatial evolution of a system.
If the universe does not change, then no time has passed.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (3) May 01, 2011No observation is needed since there is no observation that exists that proves the existence of time.
Time is a computed bulk characteristic. "t" is a parametric variable.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (3) May 01, 2011Nope. With only a single particle there is no external reference with which to judge orientation.
If you have two particles then you can judge spin. but only 2 spatial dimensions.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.3 / 5 (6) May 01, 2011If physics were only about mathematics then all of physics would be known.
Implying that time is a dimension of "space time" gives the false impression that time is a physical entity like space and that permits foolish people to wonder about traveling back in time.
The proper view of time as a emergent bulk property of a system prevents those kinds of mistakes.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.7 / 5 (3) May 01, 2011Which can be defined without using time.
p = sqrt(E**2 - (m0c**2)**2)/c
for a photon there is no rest mass m0 so...
p = E/c
"Funny that we can measure magnetic fields and the rest."
Magnetism isn't a real force and hence can't be measured.
Magnetism results from the presumption that electric fields remain a uniform spherical distribution even when moving.
They don't. And the difference between measurements that presume that charge fields remain unchanged, and their real change is the fictional force that is called magnetism.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (3) May 01, 2011No... It is the result of the forces that mediate all change and which have a propagation speed of c, having to travel a greater distance in the moving frame.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2011Don't forget that there need not be a common sequence of events between observers.
One observer may see events in the order ABC and another see them as ACB.
There is no strict universal numerical order.
frajo
5 / 5 (6) May 01, 2011Worse: With the help of mathematics it has been proven that it is impossible to know all of mathematics.
There is unphysical mathematics (see: Banach-Tarski paradox) but there is no physics which can not be modelled by mathematics. The main difficulty is to find the proper model among the inestimable many models.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (4) May 01, 2011The recursive constructs of certain programming languages are spoiling clear thinking. There is no true recursive programming because every stack is finite." - fraio
No. Green is an emergent color when one mixes blue and yellow.
What is blue and yellow splotches up close becomes uniform green when viewed from a distance.
Time is not implied here.
And even if time were implied, it would be a failing of the English language rather than a failure of concept.
"Because we can handle temperatures in manifold ways. We can lower or raise temperature in certain regions of space; we can even program the temperature behavior of material objects. But we can't do so with time." - fraio
Actually we can manipulate time for isolated systems in an exactly analogous manner. by simply returning a sample to the state it was in before now. The universe has moved forward in time, but taken in isolation from the universe, the sample has moved back in time.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.3 / 5 (4) May 01, 2011You have missed the intended meaning, so let me restate....
If physics were just mathematics than the only mysteries of physics that remain would be reduced to the remaining mysteries of algebra, which, while they are interesting in themselves, are mostly devoid of any connection with physical reality.
If physics was just about math, then there would be no new physics just as there is no new algebra.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.8 / 5 (4) May 01, 2011How Algebra is applied to the physical world isn't an algebra problem. It is a physics problem.
That is the difference between physics and mathematics.
marraco
not rated yet May 01, 2011But what we should discard, by applying Occam Razor are forces.
The concept of force is superfluous. Without forces, it's like saying a=b, then using forces is like saying a=b + f - f
It's mathematically correct, but superfluous.
brodix
1 / 5 (1) May 01, 2011If I was on an astroid in intergalactic space, then the only way to tell if it was spinning was by observing galaxies in the far distance? What if I was blind, then would I be safe, but if I could see, I would be spun off?
brodix
1 / 5 (1) May 01, 2011Jotaf
5 / 5 (3) May 01, 2011AmritSorli: Your theory implies that the independent variable "t" can be eliminated from all equations in physics. Can you do that for at least enough of them that my fellow engineers will find them useful? If you wind up having a "t-like" variable then it's just a different metaphysical interpretation (and each of us is entitled to have his own, as it's not the realm of physics).
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) May 01, 2011And what about gravitational redshifts?
So causality doesn't exist in your universe? I can die of a bullet wound, then get shot?
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) May 01, 2011No, this would be an example of, well, change.
The information regarding the changes has moved on to other sources, but it exists, nonetheless.
FrankHerbert
4.3 / 5 (6) May 01, 2011AmritSorli
1 / 5 (4) May 01, 2011Fg = ((m 1 x m2) x G)) x r on square
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) May 01, 2011On the very small scale, space isn't all about the objects in it. Space is also its own thing (quantum fluctuations) and therefore can exist separately from the objects within it.
As virtual particle interactions are time dependent, in an "empty" spacetime, time should still exist (even if only as an abstract principle).
So even in QM, time is a required property of spacetime.
George_Rodart
5 / 5 (2) May 01, 2011For example, notice how film records light changes with great difficulty when going from indoor light to outdoor light. The eye adjusts for all of this on the fly and we see persistent shades of color even in changing lighting.
While typically a human eye has sets of three cones with different sensitivities, some people have four and are capable of making more subtle distinctions. (wiki Eye)
Further there is research which shows that color perception is also affected by language.
In terms of "mixing" colors almost any three colors properly separated (generally equally) on the color wheel can be adjusted to produce white and the intermediate color mixes.
Color perception and color science is a complex topic.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet May 01, 2011Your question is one that has been first accredited to Mach. You have been imprecise in it's asking however.
Observation includes more than just seeing. An observation is any interaction you can have with another object or system.
I may not see an electron, but I can experience it's charge. That is an observation.
Similarly, I may not see a remote galaxy but if I feel it's gravitational tug, or if photons from it strike the back of my head, then that is also an observation.
Now, if I am isolated from the rest of the universe in such a way that there is no outside influence on me at all, then such an environment should be identical to a situation where I am alone in an empty universe.
Cont...
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet May 01, 2011Would I fly off, or would I conclude that the laws of physics are different?
I would conclude that the laws of physics are different. But through experimentation - by making my own distant galaxies, I could derive a simplified mathematical model in which it was I were spinning.
But that model would be as perceptually unreal to me as the effects of GR are to me now.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet May 01, 2011It would as long as the character of space around it remains the same.
Remember... Neutrons only "exist" when you observe them. Otherwise they are only a spatially and temporally distributed imprint on the underlying fluctuations of the quantum vacuum.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet May 01, 2011How big are quantum fluctuations in a universe that has no ruler that can measure them?
My expectation is that the larger an unoccupied volume, the less virtual some of the underlying fluctuations become. It would be as if the lower energy virtual particles boil off to real particles.
Without an artificial point of cutoff, the quantum ocean is infinitely deep. We deem the froth on the surface as existence.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet May 01, 2011Isn't it interesting how a linear arrangement of frequency is perceptually converted into a 3 dimensional volume - a color cube - simply by having different sensors sensitive to different ranges of frequency.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet May 01, 2011Gravitation manufactures space. Gravitational red shifts are caused by the expansion of a wavefront into a region of space that is less spatially dense so to speak than the space from which it came.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet May 01, 2011t can always be replaced by d/c for a reference light beam.
"care to point me to an article or other reference on that?" Jolaf
http://skepticspl...ism.html
http://en.wikiped...lativity
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (4) May 01, 2011observers exist at points -1, 0 and 1. Two explosions occur at -2 and 2.
Observer 0 sees both 2 and -2 occur simultaneously.
Observer -1 sees -2 occur before 2
Observer 1 sees 2 occur before -2
Interestingly you can also use this effect to put a light year long pole into a 1 cm deep box. and even close the door behind it when it is inside.
slimster
not rated yet May 01, 2011brodix
2.3 / 5 (3) May 01, 2011Vendicar,
Much of current cosmology is based on the assumption that the four dimensional fabric of spacetime is as real as those giant cosmic gear wheels of epicycles were assumed to be. Once you propose that it is simply a mathematical model and time is not a real fourth dimension, then the whole Big Bang/Inflationary cosmology concept evaporates, because space has no physical manifestation and so cannot be warped, bent, bounded, etc.
Consider that while this expanding universe is based on the redshift of light and the assumption that the only cause can be recession of the source, this raised an initial problem, because if it is essentially an expansion in three dimensional space, we would appear to be at the center of the universe. So it was amended to say that space itself expands multidimensionally and every point appears to be the center.
brodix
1 / 5 (4) May 01, 2011Inflation and Dark energy are enormous patches proposed to explain discrepancies between theory and observation. These observations could easily be explained by various aspects of a stable universe, in which the facets of collapsing mass and expanding energy make up a cosmic convection cycle.
One of the main evidentiary proofs of Big Bang theory was the discovery of Background radiation, combined with the prediction that it would exist as residue from the singularity. Yet if light travels so far it falls off the visible scale, then it would register as this black body radiation. So instead of an initial effect of the Big Bang, it would be the final effect of some form of "tired light."
brodix
1 / 5 (4) May 01, 2011Not to start arguments with convention, but I suspect many of the current assumptions are a patchwork that are not going to stand up to a lot of further evidence. The oldest observed galaxy is at 13.2 billion lightyears and that means something that large had to coalesce in just 500 million years. Given it takes our own galaxy 225 million years to make one revolution, that is a very short amount of time and will eventually seem as likely as a 6 thousand year old earth seems today.
Jotaf
5 / 5 (4) May 01, 2011Actually a 3D point. The original wave is a linear combination of an infinite number of frequencies, our eyes just sample 3 of them - it's a compact representation :)
"t can always be replaced by d/c for a reference light beam."
Surely you can't just make that substitution. These "d" and "t" are different, independent quantities. You can't just specify one as a function of the other, you need those 2 degrees of freedom.
"not at all: in every equation of physics time t is exactly numerical order of material change"
In that case, Ethelred was right and time versus change is just semantics. Of course the same concept can be interpreted in multiple ways. A wave can be interpreted in time or frequency, as above. It doesn't make sense to say one is truer than the other.
"by gravity there is no numerical order (no time)"
Yes, some forces are independent of time/velocities.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) May 01, 2011Small Excursion: Color.
I was born on Mars. My parents were born on earth.
We live on Mars right now. I have not been to earth yet.
My parents tell me:
When you visit earth, you will see color in a new light.
Due to the differences in atmospheres. Do not fret.
The wavelengths remain the same.
And your perception will adapt. As well as your vocabulary.
:)
Back to the article.
"There are a lot of clocks"
"There are a lot of numerical orders"
@Amrit
Do the quotes display equivalence for you?
brodix
1 / 5 (1) May 01, 2011http://www.americ...folktale
http://www.fqxi.o...kets.pdf
http://www.physor...752.html
ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (10) May 01, 2011ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (10) May 01, 2011Pyle
3 / 5 (6) May 02, 2011Pretty sure that is an Electric Universe crank, not aether boy.
I think it all comes back to CTCs and nobody wants to play with me. I am so disappointed. Tired light guy, brodix, almost went where I wanted, but got sidetracked by his strange twist on reality. Time can't be just the numerical order of change if a Godel universe can exist. A Godel universe can exist in GR so either this is all bunk or GR is wrong and needs fixing.
It ain't semantics. Using this way of thinking distracts from thinking about spacetime properly.
hippieland_net
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2011ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) May 02, 2011Sure, the old ladder paradox. Again, this is unrelated to the claims of the article.
http://en.wikiped..._paradox
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) May 02, 2011Do they now...
You are not the only observer. The universe is constantly observing itself.
ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (10) May 02, 2011However, stating "gravitational red shifts are caused by the expansion of a wavefront" appears to be an aether concept.
And for laughs, stating "a region of space that is less spatially dense" ...is such a ridiculous oxymoron, I was momentarily stunned with incredulity.
It's like saying, "less nothing than regular nothing." :P
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2011It is all the result of the quantum vacuum.
Gravitation increases the local vacuum energy.
As a result light passing through a gravitational field experiences more quantum scattering and hence takes longer
to traverse a void.
Since we define c as being a constant we conclude that the longer traversal time implies more space. So we conclude that there is more space the closer we get to a gravitating object, and that space is "warped" around that object.
Elisan
not rated yet May 02, 2011But the human perception of time, allows us to perceive the time as a dimension independent 3D + t. In some subjects the perception of past events, or sequences of past events and, sometimes, of the future, is just as "alive".
Since human perception dipeded to the senses, what is the sense enabled to perceive the time? Or what kind of mental processing allows us to "feel" the past in the present, or the future in the present, or the present like past?
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2011I don't think that a complete description can fit in 1000 characters.
Less spatially dense relative to a uniform grid imposed on space from a sufficient distance away such that space can be presumed to be flat.
Rulers contract when moved into stronger gravitational fields. This clearly shows that the stronger a gravitational field, the more space and more vacuum energy there is associated with it.
In reality, this additional space is a result of the larger transit time through a region due to the higher vacuum energy.
The additional vacuum energy is the self energy of the gravitational field.
Gravitational fields are attractive because there is more space below an object than above, hence quantum mechanical fluctuations in the objects position have a higher probability of occurring below than above.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011No. An alternate explanation would be the contraction of the observer.
"The problem is that the speed of light is stable. This means the space it crosses is stable" - brodix
The value of c is defined as a constant. Hence any change in c is attributed to a result of a change in d and/or a change in t.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011A. Loinger (2000), Non-existence of radiation damping of gravitational waves http://arxiv.org/...3230.pdf
frajo
5 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011This is called tetrachromacy and is present in most birds. Human tetrachromacy is a theoretical possibility only, has been claimed for some people, but is as yet not confirmed. (Wikipedia "tetrachromacy".)
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011There is a difference between past, present and future, and it is all a result of the increase in the entropy of the universe.
It would be a very rare event for a system to have a memory of it's future because it's future would have to be in it's past, along with the memory of that future.
Since the probability of such a system is exceptionally low, the probability that a system can't remember it's future is exceptionally high.
Hence the arrow of time points toward the future, not the past.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2011Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) May 02, 2011"Our conclusion could be foreseen: the hypothetical gravity waves do not possess energy and momentum, and therefore their supposed emission cannot generate any reaction force" - Amrit (link)
And yet the energy and momentum of a gravitationally bound and orbiting object is constantly changing.
Hmmmmmmmmm......
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011If so, then why does the first letter of your sentence come before the last?
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011Gravitation manufactures space. Gravitational red shifts are caused by the expansion of a wavefront into a region of space that is more spatially dense so to speak than the space from which it came.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011Nice work and thanks for that specific link.
What physical manifestation/phenomenon is typical of a redshift of a single wave?
If this exceeds the scope and space of this commentary thread, simply provide further reading links.
Are you the author?
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2011It can be measured just as gravity can be. Gravity is also a fictitious force. Just because a force is actually an emergent property of something else that does not stop us from measuring it.
No. Its is not the result of a presumption. It is the emergent result of electrical field in motion.
More
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) May 02, 2011Since he was the creator of quantum electro-dynamics I have to suspect that magnetism may be a real force and not a fictitious force like centrifugal force.
Sometimes looking at fictitious forces and comparing them to what are considered real forces like gravity leads to a deeper understanding. Which is why I am saying that gravity itself is a fictitious force. I am beginning to wonder about electromagnetism as well. Which has lead me to suspect that ALL forces can be seen as fictitious when looked at in new ways.
Yes I am wildly ambivalent on this at this TIME.
Ethelred
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) May 02, 2011I think I went a bit off on a tangent there. Color is a result of processing the brain. Which implies time as the chemical reactions involved do take place over time with many steps being dependent on the result of previous steps. Which means you need another example as that one DOES require time.
For that matter you efforts to make time go away has required time.
Would you like to do that for Humpty Dumpty? I will be really impressed.
Ethelred
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) May 02, 2011Oh dear. There is new algebra discovered fairly frequently. The catch is that mathematics can often go down more than path. And the Universe can only function in one of those ways. That is part of what experiment is for. The other part is to find out the quantities of the constants and variables.
No one has EVER discovered ANYTHING in physics that is not covered by math. LOTS of math has been discovered that does not apply to our Universe.
More
Elisan
not rated yet May 02, 2011And then, of human "perception" of time.
Mathematical formulas do not express the memory, so why the arrow of time must necessarily point to the future? Having a forward direction? Are these categories of space? Front, rear, before and after they become? In this case we consider time as a fourth dimension of space?
I did not understand well the speech on the increase of entropy as the origin of the three time dimensions.
Ethelred
2.9 / 5 (7) May 02, 2011Example
Newtonian Gravity IS mathematically valid. So is Einsteins. Experimentation shows that Einsteins is right.
String theory is NOT mathematically valid YET. Some parts are so bloody complex that thirty years of effort has not yet finished the math. So no experiment can test it yet even if there wasn't that 10 to 500th possible string theories problem.
Ethelred
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (5) May 02, 2011we write in this discussion in space only and time is numerical order of letters appearing first letter has number 1, last letter number n, arrow it time of our writing does not point into any direction....it has exclusively math value.
I'm not expert for gravity, but I see gravity as a result of density of quantum vacuum, no GW are needed to explain gravity, diminishing of orbital velocity of neutron stars might be caused by diminishing of mass of stars - mass transforms back into elementary particles of quantum vacuum...a thesis for now, we work on it....
brodix
2 / 5 (4) May 02, 2011No, I'm not the author. It was a link pointed out to me in the discussion threads in the recent FQXi contest. Here is a another version that expands on it slightly:
http://www.fqxi.o...hift.pdf
Pyle,
"Tired Light was not the most popular term. The reason It appeals to me is that there doesn't seem to be much accounting for dispersion of the wave, with particle theories of light. I realize I'm hitting my head on a brick wall with this at the moment, but with the various experiments, especially the James Webb telescope, coming on line over the next decade, I think it is only a matter of time before they start finding evidence of galaxies, hiding in the background radiation, that are simply too far and old to be explained within a 13.7 billion year old universe and the whole issue is going to have to be reopened.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) May 02, 2011Just as wrong as it was the first time.
And you have the Nobel Prize for the proof of that?
But there is in
d=1/2gtxt and ignoring all the equations with time in them won't make time disappear in a puff of exasperation.
And it is interesting that you quoted a couple of questions from other people yet did not answer them. Which is really weird.
You continued evasion of reasonable questions and the simple repetition of previously falsified remarks is standard Crank behaviour.
Ethelred
brodix
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2011Gravity does contract "space," yet space expands between gravity fields and the combined effect is neutral, ie. overall, space is flat. Currently this is being explained by Inflation blowing the universe up so large that its overall curvature isn't apparent, but a cosmic convection cycle would explain this relationship far more efficiently. Recently Paul Steinhardt, one of the developers of Inflation, raised serious questions about it creating more problems than it solves, in a cover story in SciAm.
brodix
1 / 5 (3) May 02, 2011If the universe expanded from a point, then why is the speed of light constant? The Doppler effect isn't about expanding space, but increasing distance. The train moving away doesn't create space, but moves through it. Same for galaxies: If they were x lightyears apart and then they are 2x lightyears apart, that is not expanding space, just increasing distance in stable space.
Geometry assumes zero is the center point, but logically it is the empty page. A point is one, whether it's in the center, or anywhere else on the page. Moving the points around doesn't create the space, just defines it.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) May 02, 2011d/c = Distance/300,000 Meters PER SECOND.
Does anyone know who is pretending to be Vendicar? This is just not him. Not once has he called anyone a Tard. Nor attacked the US of A as a degenerate nation. There is no way that this is the Canadian with the bad attitude that uses the handle Vendicar.
Someone has captured Vendicar and stolen his password. The Prime Minister must be informed. The Mounties must be called out.
Ethelred
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) May 02, 2011Try the word 'Nature' instead of 'entropy'.
As far as Nature is concerned, all of Nature can be defined by the way it distributes energy introduced to it.
Of course energy is timeless. The distribution (of energy) is the "shape" (or "structure") you call memory. Or perception. Or Mind. Or Math. Or Time. Or Space. Or Event. Or literally everything.
The only limits to the ways of distributing energy are the limits you impose upon yourself. And the most important limit facing everyone today are our languages - used to describe Nature.
99% of what we read, write or say, are descriptions, not definitions or rules. You want to know the origin of all our 7000 languages? That all started with perceptions. Our senses, the origin of our jump start cognitive supremacy over other evolutionary forms of life.
Ethelred is not alone. The name change has to be a rose. Putting aesthetics aside.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011Well, if I can always remove it, in what way is it still there?
"Does anyone know who is pretending to be Vendicar?" - Etherlred
So far.. No one here has been a Tard. So there has been no need to use the label.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011The speed of light isn't constant. It varies with the energy density of the space it travels through.
The speed of light in a vacuum is thought to be constant, but we don't know if this is even approximately true in the earliest moments of the origin of the universe.
I expect that c goes to 0 as t goes to 0. But then the high gravitational forces cause d to go to zero as well.
Which makes it there first? c or d???
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011Correct. Gravity manufactures space, and packs more of it into any given volume as defined by extending a Cartesian coordinate system from an area of lower gravity.
Since gravitational field strength corresponds with additional space, objects must compress as seen from areas of lower gravitational strength.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011I do as well. And as a result waves in the density of the quantum vacuum are gravitational waves as per the definition we have agreed on.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011Isn't RAM and ROM a form of memory distinct from the human mind?
"Mathematical formulas do not express the memory, so why the arrow of time must necessarily point to the future?"
As I stated earlier. It is because it is very improbable that you can remember the future without it being in your past.
So it is most probable that the future can not be remembered. Hence time flows toward the future.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011Ah. The arrow of time is a phrase that does not imply that time has any spacial direction. It is not a 3 vector. It is simply used as a label that points toward increasing time or decreasing time.
It is an old term, and the implications are imprecise, and unfortunate. But it just means forward or backward.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.5 / 5 (2) May 02, 2011I haven't seen that video, but so many of them have been pulled from circulation over the last couple of years so that access to them can be sold.
Feynman knew full well that all magnetism with the possible exception of quantum spin moments are the result of relativistic electrostatics.
Spin is a special case since electrons seem to spin, but have no internal structure to support spin. Hence their magnetic field would appear to be fundamental.
I suspect however that their spin is really due to an unequal flow of virtual particles around the charge imbalance. Such a flow is probably required to keep the charge imbalance from disapating.
"Which is why I am saying that gravity itself is a fictitious force." - Ethelred
cont...
Vendicar_Decarian
2.5 / 5 (2) May 02, 2011"Gravitational fields" are attributable to the local change in vacuum energy density. Higher density equates to a slower transit of light, and therefore an an apparent compaction of objects, an increase in space, a slowing of the flow of time, and as a result of the reduction of local entropy, the opportunity for local objects to increase the entropy by diffusing along the density gradient.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011We can certainly measure both time and temperature. Both are emergent bulk properties.
The difference of course is that no one claims that temperature is the 4th dimension.
Elisan
not rated yet May 02, 2011If I can, I'll still reflect with you.
@ Hush1. Certainly the problem of language to describe the nature and human events is a big problem. Just read Wittgenstien, to name one.
But if the energy is timeless, while the distribution of energy is "form", or structure, Levi-Strauss docet., in a sense, it is as if there is a jump from "Being" to "existence"(event )? From non-being to being? From time to time-not?
@ Vendicar. The difference between the shape of human memory and that of a RAM? Maybe it's the difference between memory and storage. A RAM stores, can not remember, the human mind stores and recalls at memory. The act of remembering seems to have an extra step, it is said that to remember is to report to memory (in the present) the past and not only what is stored. In RAM there is no past, there are only data.
Please, if I go too off-topic, tell me.
Chakir_Abdi
not rated yet May 02, 2011I think we need a definition of what is a PHYSICAL DIMENSION from Sorli so we can say for sure if time is a dimension or not.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011Can't be since time is just a parametric variable.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011Does it matter as long as the memory encodes the future and past state of the system?
Chakir_Abdi
not rated yet May 02, 2011Crazy_council
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011dconine
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011AmritSorli
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2011brodix
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011If you view the present as moving from past to future, time is a vector, similar to direction in space, but if you view the present as a dynamic state, in which potential coalesces into actual and it is the events which move "through" this present, from future to past, then it is a thermal medium and duration/rate of change, is relative to the processes enabling that change.
Because we can only exist in the present, our senses record the series of events, but then our senses also still see the sun as moving across the sky and our bio-rhythms are still very tuned to that.
The problem was developing a physical explanation for the sun's movement, much as developing a physical explanation for the present moving along the path of history is proving difficult to explain physically.
Pyle
3.3 / 5 (7) May 02, 2011Not so much. This is the vision of the intuitive (apparently held by Einstein and Godel). Intuitive doesn't hold much water in our current understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics. I am not saying I disagree, but Godel's solution to the EFE needs to be addressed if your idea that time is only numerical order of change can hold any water.
You keep saying "opens new understanding" and the like, but as Ethelred keeps asking: HOW? GR operates in spacetime, just because you chose to call a dimension not a dimension doesn't mean you are changing anything. Your semantic battle with Zeno is just babble. Maybe useful for a philo, but of no value to physics from what you have displayed here.
The burden of usefulness is on you.
Chakir_Abdi
not rated yet May 02, 2011BillOvercamp
not rated yet May 02, 2011dnatwork
5 / 5 (2) May 02, 2011Doesn't c include the concept of time, as it is a speed?
hush1
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011Worst still, once that sum is successfully provided and described, we expect that sum to render our understanding of time as obsolete. The sum has to predict, as well as, repeat 'something' that is timeless and infinite in form.
The tool 'Spacetime' falls shorts in describing and providing the 'sum' described above.
The tool 'Numerical order of change in space' is like metaphorically looking at twins when regarding both tools.
I am not the Mother. I can not tell them apart. You can. And assert this tool provides and describes the 'sum' described above.
Isn't this why we invent new meaning?
Even for words that already exist?
What are we manipulating? In virtual reality?
You say order. Others say time. And enjoy playing.
In a timeless world.
dnatwork
not rated yet May 02, 2011How much irony can be packed into one comment around here?
Elisan
not rated yet May 02, 2011It is the animated matter (and in particular the human mind understood as self-conscience, to do exist time in the three dimensions (past-present-future).
But if time was relative only to the "conscience", would be possible to write a mathematical analysis of the matter without the time element?
hush1
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2011This is exactly what the authors Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar are attempting to do.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) May 02, 2011As strongly as you feel about separating the concepts of space and time from the collective "spacetime," I feel about calling gravity a force. In GR, gravity is not a force. It's topology.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) May 02, 2011Wow. You obviously don't understand time dilation. Time and the speed of light are inextricably linked. No observer can ever see the speed of light in a vacuum change. However, distant observers can see a similar effect caused by time dilation. It's why black holes have the nickname, "frozen stars."
"Oppenheimer and his co-authors interpreted the singularity at the boundary of the Schwarzschild radius as indicating that this was the boundary of a bubble in which time stopped. This is a valid point of view for external observers, but not for infalling observers. Because of this property, the collapsed stars were called 'frozen stars,'"
http://en.wikiped...lativity
RChard
5 / 5 (1) May 03, 2011Elisan
not rated yet May 03, 2011I'm going to read these authors, because I'm convinced that the time (in three dimensions, as perceived by the human mind) is inherent to conscience, but since the matter exists independently of the conscience, it must be possible to describe and mathematized it, independently to that is specific of the human being, ie its capacity to reflect, to be thought of thought.
If it is true that the universe is written in the language of mathematics, this language existed before human being and will exist even after the human being.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (5) May 03, 2011relative is velocity of material change. "relativity" starts with massive particles, time cannot be "relative" because it has only mathematical character, see our coming article in Physics Essays
yours amrit
Elisan
1 / 5 (2) May 03, 2011"It is convenient to replace the concept of time with the numerical order of material change".
I agree with the authors. In fact, we should also change the language (as we said yesterday) and no longer use the term time, but rather "change space" or numerical order or other terms.
This will avoid confusion.
Elisan
1 / 5 (2) May 03, 2011Even Kant, who was not a metaphysician, approached the space and time and consider these two factors as a-priori concepts.
While time isn't a dimension in addition to other dimension, but a mode of expression of other dimensions.
Or not?
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) May 03, 2011So you think relativity isn't a mathematical theory now? Really?
Elisan
not rated yet May 03, 2011In the macro as in micro systems, that we observe is the information, not the object. If the information is light, ie a certain frequency, this will take some time to cover a certain space, the distance between the object and the observer. So it is only when the distance is 0, that space is 0, the velocity is 0, that the observer is "in front of the object, ie the object corresponds to information.
In all cases where the distance between the observer and the object is greater than 0, we are in front at an information and not an object. At this point we can only classify the information.
Later, when we encounter an "object", ie when the distance is 0, and this object gives us a particular piece of information, we can search this information in to our "database" of information previously gathered by observing the information given by other objects,. If there is, its means that we have already seen something like that.
The problem is: how do we know
Elisan
not rated yet May 03, 2011In the macro as in micro systems, that we observe is the information, not the object. If the information is light, ie a certain frequency, this will take some time to cover a certain space, the distance between the object and the observer. So it is only when the distance is 0, that space is 0, the velocity is 0, that the observer is "in front of the object, ie the object corresponds to information.
In all cases where the distance between the observer and the object is greater than 0, we are in front at an information and not an object. At this point we can only classify the information.
Later, when we encounter an "object", ie when the distance is 0, and this object gives us a particular piece of information, we can search this information in to our "database" of information previously gathered by observing the information given by other objects,. If there is, its means that we have already seen something like that.
The problem is: how do we kn
brodix
1 / 5 (1) May 03, 2011Energy and information are two sides of the same coin. Energy manifests information and information defines energy. Since the energy is conserved, as new information is created, old information is erased.
When we are observing something at a distance, we are receiving the information carrying energy and interpreting it according to the patterns manifested in our mind.
As for time, the energy goes from prior information configurations to succeeding ones, while the information becomes manifest and then is replaced. So energy goes past to future, while information goes future to past.
To the extent our brains are physically manifest, they proceed from past events to future ones. Our minds are a succession of thoughts, which coalesce out of received information and then evolve into, or are replaced by the next thought, depending on our level of concentration. So the brain goes past to future, while the thoughts go from being in the future to being in the past.
Elisan
not rated yet May 03, 2011In all cases where the distance between the observer and the object is greater than 0, we are in front at an information and not an object. At this point we can only classify the information.
Later, when we encounter an "object", ie when the distance is 0, and this object gives us a particular piece of information, we can search this information in to our "database" of information previously gathered by observing the information given by other objects,. If there is, its means that we have already seen something like that.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) May 03, 2011I can change 7 billion people's way of language and thinking.
In one day.
I invent the wheel.
I build the fission and/or fusion bomb.
I build and create the first synthetic life form from organic/inorganic chemicals.
I create and build cold fusion reactors.
You get the idea.
I am not going to claim anything, until every one can repeat my experiment.
Tweaking one word and it's meaning in all the human languages (math included) falls short of this.
Please read Physorg's article:
Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time.
With the recommended reading I express a very high, extremely high personal bias. The "software" of all science.
Elisan
not rated yet May 03, 2011In all cases, when the distance between the observer and the object is greater than 0, we are in front to an information, not to an object. At this point we can only classify the information previously gathered by observing the information given by other objects,. If there is, its means that we have already seen something like that.
frajo
5 / 5 (4) May 03, 2011Elisan
1 / 5 (2) May 03, 2011But if E = mc (2) and if it is true, as I said before, we can say to be in front to an object when the distance is 0, so when speed is 0, ie the "light" (the "frequency ", information) of that object is 0, than we will have mx0= 0. How to say, it is only when we are faced with something cold and dark we are faced with an object. In all other cases we have in front of information only.
Crazy_council
1 / 5 (1) May 03, 2011arnt they the same thing, the information is a description of the speed/lengh/etc the object is the reprisentation of this discription fuctioning within the constants of the universe.
ie, the object/information are the same thing.
maybe am missing your point.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) May 03, 2011Looks that way but considering Amrit's total inability to answer any question except to repeat the things questioned puts HIS consciousness into question. And in any case nothing in the mathematics nor in the concept of time as an ordered series of events requires consciousness.
Ethelred
Chakir_Abdi
5 / 5 (3) May 03, 2011That is exactly what I thought, universe doesn't care about our consciousness or we observe him or not. Universe exist even when we don't observe him.
Paljor
5 / 5 (1) May 03, 2011hush1
1 / 5 (1) May 03, 2011My modest universe is Classical and Quantum Information Theory
Where angels fear to tread, Elisan dares to go.
Letting time go will be another source nostalgia.
Of course without time nostalgia will be an object of the past.
And, of course, that statement is a paradox as well.
Ethelred
1.3 / 5 (3) May 03, 2011I am still having difficulty with that. I want immortality so I can go back to school and learn the math I need. And brain implants so I can deal with the math without feeling like Mr Gumby so often.
"My brain hurts." Mr. Gumby
"" Dr. Gumby
"" Dr. Gumby
"WELL, IT WILL HAVE TO COME OUT THEN" Dr. Gumby
http://www.youtub...KiRPSNGA
Ethelred
Crazy_council
1 / 5 (1) May 03, 2011Elisan
1 / 5 (1) May 03, 2011Why do we say hours, seconds? Why do we divide a day into two: day and night?
Why do we say that the solar revolution takes 1 year?, 12 months?
We could use another unit, that is a fragment of different "time "? Is time only different states, ie spatial positions of the earth to the sun.
Is not it time a human construct?
frajo
5 / 5 (4) May 03, 2011Instead, we live in a physical world which can be described ("modelled") by mathematics. These models are ruled by mathematics.
But mathematics is richer than physics, Thus, _not all_ mathematical rules and properties apply to the physical world. There are lots of mathematics without any physical analogue. For instance the Dirichlet function which is everywhere discontinuous.
hush1
3 / 5 (4) May 03, 2011At first, they took away the human construct of absolute frame of reference.
Next, they took away the human construct of time.
Then, they took away the human construct of arbitrariness.
Finally, they took away the construct labeled humans.
Proclaiming at that point:
Let there be void and darkness!
And it was good.
"In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that only have meaning to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning.[2] This is considered normal in children.
Since we no longer have time, we are led to one, and only one, conclusion:
We are children.
Of all ages.
And it was good.
Ethelred has Dr. Gumby.
Elisan has neologism.
And I am having a good TIME. lol
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) May 03, 2011Sorry. Temperature is defined as a dE/dS for a system where E is the systems energy, and S it's entropy.
Time does not enter into the definition.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) May 03, 2011c can be a velocity. But with the appropriate choice of units in physics then c becomes a dimensionless constant = 1.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) May 03, 2011If it were simply topology then two stationary objects would have no reason to begin to fall toward each other.
On the other hand, if gravity is a result of a local increase in the zero point energy of space, then quantum fluctuations in the objects "creating the field" will draw them together, since the gravitational field has in effect induced more space between the objects than on the opposing side.
d o1 D o2 d
d < D d,D density of space as measured compared to a projection from a large distance from o1 and o2.
Gravity creates space.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) May 03, 2011c is determined by the scattering density of the particles that compose the vacuum. Increase their density and you increase the number of scattering events and in one view you decrease c.
In another view if you presume that c is a constant, then you have manufactured space since the transit time through a volume has increased, and the distance traveled must have increased in order to keep c fixed.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2011The value of c is determined by the amount of scattering a photon experience while traveling through space. Between scattering events c is infinite, but emission delays within the scattering events themselves reduce the effective speed to c.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (2) May 03, 2011ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) May 04, 2011That is, they aren't really indistinguishable in the broad sense, but rather only in a narrow sense.
An aside: Awhile back, I described methodologies wherein a sealed room observer might tell the difference between acceleration and resting on a planet, through experimentation. The caveat was, the sealed room must obey all the laws of physics, save being able to perpetually accelerate. It was a fun brain stretch.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) May 04, 2011"First Einstein said you must think of space and time together: this is called spacetime..."
http://www.gravit...Time.pdf
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) May 04, 2011Uba - guardian of senses.
The rest of us - caught off guard.
:)
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) May 04, 2011Yes. But I don't see how any universe could support all of mathematics. Some sort of symmetry breaking would have to occur. And of course some sorts of math simply could not support life. So nothing would ever notice the existence of them.
Ethelred
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) May 04, 2011Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) May 04, 2011Look, you aren't going to make time go away by hoping no one notices that you are simply hiding the time related elements. Not one of your examples have been time independent. ALL have required movement. Posting them has required time. Discussing it has required time.
Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) May 04, 2011The brain does not construct time. It is a construct OF time via evolution.
So I feel the need, the need to waste my TIME asking you VERY relevant questions.
WHAT THE BLOODY HELL MAKES YOUR IDEA WORTHWHILE SINCE IT IS NOTHING BUT PHILOSOPHY?
Its pretty clear why now why you PMed me. You didn't want to discuss this in public.
Why do you think evasion is useful? Does the school know that your engaging in such a poor attempt at discussion? Why would anyone want to study in a school where the teachers obdurately refuse to answer questions?
That last question was running through my head today.
Ethelred
Chakir_Abdi
5 / 5 (2) May 04, 2011Temperature is the mean energy of MOTION. At thermodynamic level we assume the " system" is changing over time from one equilibrium state to another equilibrium state and that is how we get rid off TIME in the equations but is still there implicitly. There will be no system evolution if no time. One single configuration of the system is a snapshot in time of the system.
thanks @etherlred.
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) May 04, 2011It is difficult to 'catch' 'now'. 'Now' must be really 'fast'.
Any 'sign' of 'now' is "for the record".
As if spacetime is "for the record" and not the "event".
Reminds me of picking a point on a continuous line that with present day tools of math no one can find.
Arbitrary close? Sure. That is still not my point.
Pun intended as well. :)
dnatwork
1 / 5 (1) May 04, 2011It does sound like just moving the units around in the equations without ever changing the math, but the change in viewpoint has helped me, I think. Again, I'm a complete novice, but I've always had trouble seeing how anything was actually explained by the idea of a gravitational field as a surface that can be depressed by massive objects.
This article led me to think of space as a (very large) set of (very tiny) volumes (Planck distance cubed?), with photons hopping from one volume to the next, but never being able to move any shorter distance than that. If c is still the cosmic speed limit, then the existence of black holes means that space has to do something that is not motion in order to keep the units of space ahead of the photons that want to hop through them.
The non-motion thing could be explained if a gravitational field were a sort of extra-dimensional conveyor belt
(continued)
dnatwork
1 / 5 (1) May 04, 2011At that point, the gravitational field might look like a surface from a distance (the stereotypical rubber sheet with a bowling ball in the middle), but that flatness is an artifact of the observer's perspective. Looking very close (and in an extra dimension), you'd see that there is volume and structure and motion within the plane of that sheet. Rotate your perspective, and the first sheet would leave your view while new ones constantly blossomed before you, but all of them are just Flatland representations of a higher-dimensional reality.
There's still a problem of motion here, though. The units of space should not exceed the speed of light even in that extra dimension, so how do they get away from the photons that are trying so desperately to hop on them?
(continued)
dnatwork
1 / 5 (1) May 04, 2011Now it is not necessary for the gravitational conveyor belt to move away from the photon faster than light. Instead, it just has to move TOWARD the oncoming photon fast enough to leave it no place to land.
In a normal gravitational field, the fractional motion of space-units is such that the photon can catch the next unit of space, or the one after that. Near a black hole, on the other hand the fractional motion of space-units is such that the photon always misses its mark. I think you'd stop seeing photons escape when the conveyor belt reaches c/2.
(cont.)
dnatwork
1 / 5 (1) May 04, 2011No doubt it would be better/simpler to get rid of the conveyor belt in any real theory, and instead say something along the lines of the units of space being compressed or inflated depending on their location in the gravity well. But my original point was, this article led me down the path to the conveyor belt analogy, and suddenly I can visualize things in a way that helps me understand better (maybe, I think).
Thank you for listening to Amateur Hour. We now return you to your regularly scheduled erudition.
dnatwork
5 / 5 (6) May 04, 2011I don't have to be a physicist to recognize algebra. The only way to get rid of t in the denominator of your equations is to multiply everything else by t, or by something that includes t. Cheating!
Also:
Speed = d/t
Velocity = speed + direction = (d/t) + direction
Ergo, c contains t no matter how you slice it.
Don't split hairs, dude, you undermine your credibility.
brodix
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2011The thing about that rubber sheet analogy is; What is its topology, without the gravity wells? Flat. So we add the gravity wells and it's not flat anymore, but the areas between those gravity wells are not still on the original flat plane, but are pushed up proportional to the degree the wells pull it down, so the overall effect is still flat. That is exactly what we observe. Between gravity wells, there is this cosmological constant which balances the effect of gravity and keeps the universe from collapsing. Now if we observe light that has managed to weave its way past all the intervening gravity fields, it has only crossed space which is part of the "bulged out sheet" and so is redshifted relative to distance. If I may use another simplistic analogy, it has been climbing up the down escalator.
brodix
1 / 5 (1) May 04, 2011Math is static. Physics is dynamic.
brodix
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2011It's difficult to catch events, as they are composed of light. "Now" has you every moment.
What if the point is stable and the line moves through it?
frajo
3.8 / 5 (4) May 05, 2011Whether time is mathematics only or not? Like you, I don't see any difference.
Whether we live in a world of mathematics? Of course not. There is no physical Dirichlet function. I guess you mean time vs. order. Yes, no way.
I'm not in the business of speculating about "other universes". There's one - our universe. Anything else is a waste of time for me.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) May 05, 2011Their historical evolutions? Their contents? Something else?
How is "static science" defined, how is "dynamic science" defined?
Elisan
not rated yet May 05, 2011This can make us say that may be there physical worlds with different mathematical models? or we can build them physically using other mathematical models, as well as we can write a different story respect that the protogonists are living. Or maybe just the fact that we are the protagonists, not the author of history, we can not do anything else that live history (the physical world we live in) and do not create any more?
Elisan
5 / 5 (1) May 05, 2011My nick Elisan is't a neologism, it is a acronym of my irst name and second name (you see in to my profile).
With regard to the timeless world of children ... does not psychology tell us to discover the kid in us?
And Nietzsche was not speaking of the Dionysian world like a world of childhood and happiness?
But while we want a better world, now we have to deal with this world, some call it a valley of tears.
PeterShares
1 / 5 (1) May 05, 2011"Anyone who thinks they're important is usually just a pompous moron who can't deal with his or her own pathetic insignificance and the fact that what they do is meaningless and inconsequential."
- William Thomas
Elisan
5 / 5 (1) May 05, 2011I do not know what and who you are referring. Crazy or genius, here I found people who want to make an argument and they do it, right or wrong that might be for others. Maybe because I live in a country where he lost the habit of thinking and where people express themselves with slogans. I appreciate the words that I read. I can share them or not, but its stimulate to think. And that's the important thing for me.
You know, anyone have the truth in your pocket.
brodix
1 / 5 (1) May 05, 2011I didn't say "science." Science is the study of processes. Math is static because it is conceptual modeling and modeling is reductionistic framing. If you still have dynamic processes going on, within that model, it quickly breaks apart. Physics must describe the dynamic processes and it necessarily gets fuzzy when it gets too precise. Consider the concept of one. As math, it's eternal and inviolate, but consider any individual physical object and it's just a finite and subjective node in some larger network.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) May 05, 2011The remark about neologism was not meant for people's names.
Psychology is a favorite subject of mine. As with all things, there are areas of Psychology to which there is no agreement.
Psychological recognition of a "child" 'element(s)' in us, I wholly, fully support and endorse.
Nietzsche. Yes. Psychologically, a close relationship is conjectured to exist between him and his sister. Siblings play an essential role in the happiness of a person's childhood.
I am not alone here on this thread commentary, when I say: many commentators find thoughtful insight in your commentary.
Commentary always fulfills the purpose I read here: to learn.
The authors of this endeavor have promised experimentation.
Our discourse over this now is premature. Any discourse over a change in the way of thinking is a good primer though, if the change is necessary and occurs. Thanks for your reply.
Elisan
not rated yet May 05, 2011Oh yes, and testing and replicability of a theory, hypothesis or model are thouse which differ from the scientific approach to the philosophical reflection.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) May 05, 2011Reflection is what we do. What we are. What we seek.
If you have no time (not in the sense being discussed here), then you will substitute the following Bertrand Russell quote:
"Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise."
...with the word;
Reflection.
The word you ended your comment on, reflects the reflection you have given your thoughts.
:)
Elisan
not rated yet May 06, 2011Unfortunately I translate from Italian, I do not think in English. And when I write the answers here, I'm afraid sometimes I do not use the right words.
This too is thinking ... the human mind needs time to learn.
If I hypothesize to eliminate time as a category, what I mean such as learning? Why learning is inherent in an ordered sequence of states? Why can not I effectively or logically choose some state in a disordered sequence? Why can not I go (jump) directly to a state of total learning?
Ultimately, the questions on time will be reduced to this: why there is order and not disorder?
And what role has the concept of entropy in all this?
hush1
1 / 5 (1) May 06, 2011I wanted to leave this thread and the commentary with Wittgenstein's Adage;
"The limits of your languages are the limits of your world"
Ironically, I will use numerical order of change to mark my original words,thought,action,event and intended departure.
The 230th comment is my comment. (Depends if you include zero in counting) I depart on that comment and this prediction:
The language we ultimately learn to describe Nature requires no translation. A universal language for a Universe we will ultimately experience. I just don't know when. Why do I not know when this occurs? Because 'when' is the object of this discussion now.
Your 'Child' has spoken: "I'm afraid sometimes I do not use the right words."
My 'Parent' says: "However you use words, words are last on a list of fears, you need to fear."
Information Theory views entropy differently than discussed here.
All good questions. Which others will answer. :)
DivineParadox
not rated yet May 08, 2011There is one question I do not see the answer to in this thread. That is hopefully simply put, If our universe ceased to exist would time still exist? If time is a function of movement, gravity, space, thought, observations, whatever... Does time exist without our Universe? Does time only exist because energy-matter exists? Or is time existent on some level without our participation? Are we trapped in a time-bubble that causes time to be ineffably incomprehensible while we are in it, like an ameba on a microscope slide only perceives his dimension of reality?
dnatwork
5 / 5 (1) May 09, 2011No, better to keep the conveyor belt in the form of the lines of force of the gravitic field (like magnetic field lines, but with no poles). The force lines extend in all directions and follow an elliptic path, with the massive object as one of the foci. The stronger the gravity, the closer the approach of the ellipse to that focus, and the farther the other end reaches out into the rest of the universe.
If gravity is mediated by particles, they would zip along the force lines at a speed determined by the shape of the ellipse and their position on it. Really wide ellipses (black holes, of course) would have a point where the outward motion drops to zero, so the particles just hang there and never return their juice to the universe.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (1) May 09, 2011time = numerical order of change
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) May 09, 2011Which is still time.
Just repeating yourself doesn't change things, indeed that seems the point of your idea. So how about you take your own concept to heart and CHANGE instead of repeating the same thing.
But change still takes time. Time may be meaningless without change but there is no change without time. Time is NOT just a numerical order of change. It CONTROLS how much change can occur in any interval. The length of time is the key not the amount of change.
Ethelred
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) May 09, 2011There is simply no test that can be done if the results would be the same either way.
It is NOT premature to point out that they CANNOT do any testing that has any meaning UNLESS there is something in their idea that can be distinguished, by testing, from the standard concept of time.
This is rather like flipping a coin with identical sides. There has to be something different to figure out which side came up.
Ethelred
Jnwaco
not rated yet May 09, 2011Dingdongdog
not rated yet May 09, 2011Therefore, it cannot be considered as a directional dimension (e.g., 1-D, 2-D, 3-D, etc.) of empty space, electro-gravitational energy fields, or material forms.
This dos not mean that the universe is timeless, but that time is not a scalar dimension, nor is it a directional vector other than as a measurement of the rate of change from one physical or metaphysical condition or position to another. For example, frequency is the change in time of cyclic motion as an energy wave expands and contracts from positive to negative polarity.
Obviously, then, time cannot be the cause or effect of such change, nor is it any part of the wave or object that changes its shape, position, momentum, etc.
That's all the article is saying.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) May 09, 2011If two observers are in uniform motion relative to an observed frequency generator (they're not in motion relative to the generator) and one is in a gravity well and the other not, they will perceive different frequencies from the same source (and experience different clock rates from each other, as a result). Therefore, time is a property of spacetime, and not simply a numerical order of change.
Dingdongdog
not rated yet May 10, 2011The differences could simply be a doppler effect, due to the difference in the gravitational forces effecting the wave length of the reflected observing radiation. (more)
Dingdongdog
not rated yet May 10, 2011frajo
not rated yet May 10, 2011While this is a very lyrical picture, I see things more pragmatic: The physical universe is the initial source for the words in a dictionary (called mathematics) made by humans. We use the (subset of understood) words in this dictionary not only to invent stories, we also use them to invent new words; therefore mathematics is richer than physics.
While physics evolved to produce us humans, we are the creators of mathematics. We own mathematics. Physics owns us. We may create stories and call them "other universes" but they'll remain unfalsifiable human phantasies forever.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) May 10, 2011That would be an example of local spacetime.
So now you're suggesting human-made clocks control incoming wave frequencies? Really? How do they do that?
By "it" may I presume you mean spacetime? Spacetime changes the "waveform" (clock rate) of the clock for distant observers. Locally, the speed of light (and ergo perceived clock rates) must always be uniform.
frajo
not rated yet May 10, 2011Maths is more than only modelling. The history of number theory shows that maths is creating. The invention of the imaginary numbers wasn't reductionist framing. Neither were Goedel's incompleteness theorems. Opening the mind to unknown truths is not appropriately described by calling it "reductionistic framing".
Science is not only the study of processes. Processes are structures involving time. Science is also the study of general structures.
Maths is as dynamic as every science with a history.
...Maths and physics are not identical with their objects.
frajo
5 / 5 (3) May 10, 2011Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) May 10, 2011It isn't timeless in this concept. It has time in sense of a ordered series either of C for Change or more reasonably T for Time.
1 Events occur in a time ordered manner
2 Events occur that are dependent on what happened in the lower numbered instances.
3 It can be considered as a set of integers based on the Planck interval.
4 This is the fourth number in this set of time ordered events. Of course I didn't write them in 4 Planck intervals. Indeed, each character I typed took many such intervals.
5 Frankly I understand this far better than Amrit or he would have been answering questions like this one instead of evading them. But I have been thinking about this for many years. I am not very comfortable with it as I have said previously on this site. By which I mean you can find my posts on other articles going back many months if not more than a year.
More
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) May 10, 20117 Why is there something?
8 Rather than nothing?
9 Possible answer - If the something is mathematically valid why shouldn't it exist.
10 Which lead to the concept of the Universe as math.
11 Which lead to time being in some sense illusory since each time ordered event can be considered as existing outside of the time that we experience as a mathematical set. Which bugs me. And everyone that comments on my posts, I think.
12 Still I can't see anything wrong with the idea even though others have made comments that show they see things wrong with it none of those comments have actually addressed the point I have made several times, even on this thread of:
13 How could you tell the difference if the math works the same either way?
More
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) May 10, 201115 Which is what Cranks often do. They frequently ignore inconvenient questions.
I just received another mindless PM from Amrit. He seems to completely incapable of comprehending the concept of public discussion. I am stupefied that anyone involved in science can be this thick.
Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) May 10, 2011I see it as mathematical. Nothing lyrical in it. VERY pragmatic in any case. Just do the math.
The principles of math are not dependent on the Universe we live in. As you pointed out we a fully capable of coming up with math that is NOT dependent on our Universe.
Yes. But not all forms of math are compatible with a functioning Universe. Some forms of math are not compatible with each other. Such as Euclidean vs. Non-Euclidean geometry.
More
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) May 10, 2011We are the creator of the LANGUAGE and symbols of math. The principles are independent of us.
Rubbish. That is like owning physics.
Well it allows us to exist anyway. In THIS Universe.
Not fantasies. Philosophies that can lead to new ideas and ways of thinking about things. They may even someday be testable. Kind of like string theory maybe being testable someday.
How could you tell the difference if the Universe is math? My point being that you can't tell the difference. I completely agree with the rest of that post.
Ethelred
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (1) May 10, 2011http://www.physor...ies.html
proves following:
-cosmic space is 3D - because all the angles are measured in three directions X,Y,Z
-cosmic space has granular structure - frame dragging
...outcome is that time we measure with clocks cannot be the 4th dimension of space:
Jnwaco
not rated yet May 10, 2011Ethelred:
"It isn't timeless in this concept. It has time in sense of a ordered series either of C for Change or more reasonably T for Time."
It has the sense of an ordered series, but that's just an illusion under the 4D block universe. In the block universe, with no time, nothing moves, nothing "happens", and literally nothing "changes". Why things appear ordered then becomes a HUGE mystery. There quite literally is no "becoming" under this view.
I appreciate the response, but that doesn't seem to jive with what the article says.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) May 10, 2011Possibly. And its space-time not just space.
False. It is proof that time and space MUST be a single set. If you think otherwise try posting a reason instead of making yet another bald assertion with no math or even reason to support it.
Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) May 10, 2011As you can see Amrit has a problem with 4D space. He can't make it go away in the math but he keeps making the claim that it doesn't exist.
What do you mean by 'BLOCK' universe? Please tell me it does not involve 'conveyor belts'.
Yes, BLOCK or not. So what does that have to do with a Universe with time? A ordered series of change IS time. Note that Amrit has admitted that this is mathematically indistinguishable from the usual concept of time. He seems to have forgotten he said that.
No more so than in the Standard Model where particles have no direction in time. One of the favored idea is that entropy gives direction to time on the macro level. I like that but I tend to go with it as property of the Universe and WHY doesn't enter into it.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) May 10, 2011What you are saying is if there is if there is no time there is no change, which I agree with but that is NOT what the article is saying. Amrit is saying that the time is just a listing of change in an ordered series. But the two ways of thinking produce the same math. No matter how many PMs Amrit sends me saying I don't understand it. He has yet to show a single mistake in what I have written. Even in the PMs.
Amrit, if I got that wrong SHOW WHERE. Those silly PMs are like John Cleese in the Monty Python argument sketch. Completely without meaning or value except as entertainment.
Ethelred
Jnwaco
not rated yet May 10, 2011Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) May 10, 2011Perhaps if you explain just why there is no change with time or change as a dimension it will make some sense.
Ethelred
gall
4.2 / 5 (5) May 10, 2011Jnwaco
not rated yet May 10, 2011If the universe is 4d, and all events, past, present, and future, already exist in this 4d universe, then yes, there is no change. You apparently find this counterintuitive, as do I. However, to state that there are 4 dimensions that exist in a block universe as argued by the tenseless physicists entails that nothing ever changes. The future is what it is, and does not change - it's "there" already. In this sense, the article really is poorly written because it switches back and forth between the A theory and B theory of time.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) May 10, 2011AmritSorli
1.5 / 5 (8) May 10, 2011m alive = m dead + delta m (this delta m might be dark matter)
Skultch
5 / 5 (4) May 10, 2011what? Can you have someone translate for you, please?
Are you trying to prove living things contain more dark matter than nonliving? That we affect the dark matter? What is your hypothesis? What does this have to do with spacetime? Ahhh. Maybe it is warped by the dark matter in our brains giving us supernatural abilities? I don't think we are that special.
ubavontuba
3 / 5 (12) May 11, 2011I guess for him Heaven is quite literally, the heavens! Personally though, I'd rather not float around in space for all eternity...
frajo
5 / 5 (2) May 11, 2011You are trying to split non-existing hairs. Humans, as every object existing for a finite interval of time, have been produced by environment. They have not been sorted out because they didn't exist before their production.Neither of the universe nor of ryggesogn2. Keep your spiritualism. A minor pretentious particle.
Dingdongdog
not rated yet May 11, 2011Other than the standard renormalized "mathematics - which is contrived to verify the assumptions - where is your "proof" that time is a "physical" (i.e.directional) dimension of the observable 3-space?
From any observer POV In each moment of time, that space is all that exists. Therefore, logically, time can only be the measure of change from each moment to the next. e,g., the change is in movements of the galaxies, stars and particles, plus expansion
gall
5 / 5 (3) May 11, 2011"There exists a journal titled, 'Frontier Perspectives' which is published by the Center for Frontier Sciences at Temple University, Philadelphia. It purports to be a scientific journal, but is so chock full of pseudoscience and quackery, that Professor John Allen Paulos of Temple University, author of "Innumeracy," reports that the faculty of Temple is embarrassed by the journal."
As far as I can see it Physics Essays's quality isn't much better.
Jnwaco
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2011From any observer POV In each moment of time, that space is all that exists. Therefore, logically, time can only be the measure of change from each moment to the next. e,g., the change is in movements of the galaxies, stars and particles, plus expansion
Thank you. Someone else gets it. This does not bode well for time travel, either, no matter how mathematically possible the quacks say it is. The only reason that events appear to occur at different times to different observers is because light does not travel at an infinite speed. Change is what happens, the past is gone, and there is nothing to travel back to.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (2) May 11, 2011Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) May 11, 2011However BUT can often be used in place of AND as both are conjunctives with the same logical meaning though(or but) they have different implied meanings. BUT HOWEVER THOUGH AND PLUS INCLUDING all can be used interchangeably in most cases. That is the good and the bad of English. Many words with similar meanings. This concludes the English lesson from someone that failed his college entrance exam for English. I have improved I think or at least I no longer give a damn what English teachers think is proper grammar: and punctuation.
More
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) May 11, 2011You didn't listen. Only one can be true in any viable Universe. You are looking for ways to make my idea go away and are avoiding the point that no VIABLE universe can have physics that mirrors ALL of mathematics. This in no way makes it impossible for universes to exist with a SUBSET of mathematics as their basis.
Not really. Just being a pedant. Not to be confused with pederast.
More
Gawad
not rated yet May 11, 2011Pyle
3 / 5 (6) May 11, 2011No, that isn't exactly right. It is more important that c is constant in all frames than it just not being infinite. Relativity.
Not if Godel universes are viable. CTCs!!!!! Gotta fix it or show why it doesn't work if you want to make time "the numerical order of material change".
Back to the pedantry...
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) May 11, 2011OK what was that directed at? To ACCIDENT? The article? Spiritualism and I do not mix. As for particles, I find it hard to ascribe pretension to them.
I notice that you didn't deal with my question. So again:
Ethelred
Jnwaco
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2011I agree. But c being constant and finite still entails that different observers may not agree on when an event occurs relative to events in their inertial frame.
"Not if Godel universes are viable. CTCs!!!!! Gotta fix it or show why it doesn't work if you want to make time "the numerical order of material change".
And herein lies the quackery. This makes the presumption that CTCs actually exist outside of abstract mathematics. The burden of proof is on "scientists" to prove that these solutions to GR are actual, and not merely theoretical.
Pyle
3.3 / 5 (7) May 11, 2011Wouldn't you think that the burden would be on those upending one of the foundations of GR, i.e. space-time? I merely point to one famous mathematician's work, that IS consistent within GR that has yet to be proven incompatible with reality, AND that the authors of the paper in this article refer to.
Further, Godel universes aren't an ignored area of study. Many physicists have spent time studying Godel's solutions and, again AFAIK, nobody has come up with why a universe couldn't be constructed in this manner and still be consistent with GR. They have shown, however, that our universe seems to not be a Godel universe based on red shift observations.
Jnwaco
not rated yet May 11, 2011No. To the extent GR matches observations, it's silly to talk about upending it. The problem comes in when a mathematical construct goes beyond observation and makes further claims, which almost all mathematical constructs do. Past the point of observation, it is precisely those claiming the additional "reality" to prove it. Part of any "improvement" to GR in the future might entail that CTCs are impossible.
Without empirical proof, it's simply no longer science.
Dingdongdog
not rated yet May 11, 2011Agreed. But, if time was a real "dimension" of space - why is it that we can move willfully in any direction, at any speed, and to any place in 3-D metric space, but cannot speed up, slow down, or change our position in time - no matter how hard we will it?
Wouldn't this indicate that time was an abstraction related only to measurement of continued changes in physical states or locations?
Pyle
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2011I think CTCs are evidence that GR needs to be "improved" as you put it. I believe they are an artifact of a theory pushed beyond its limits, as are singularities in black holes and a myriad other "allowable" things within GR. Intuitively I like the author's premise, but without the math to fix GR, they just aren't saying anything novel or useful.
(btw, I don't think CTCs are affected by the idea of past present and future being predetermined. In fact I think CTCs would be very possible in "block time".)
No, that would make it theory.
@Ddd: Intuitively it seems to, yes. Definitively, we don't know.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2011Cranks. If you handle time the same way as space in Minkowski space you wrong answers half the time. Move on. It's handled as 3+1, not 4. This is so basic it's ridiculous. Literally. You could teach it in high school. They wouldn't like you, but you could.
Jnwaco
not rated yet May 11, 2011That's what I personally feel is the reality. Unfortunately, I have no idea, not being a trained physicist, of how this would be tested.
@Pyle
"Lost me there. My point was that CTCs have been shown to be consistent with GR and seem to me to be in direct conflict with the article's premise."
I have absolutely no reason to doubt that they are currently mathematically consistent with GR. And I agree 100% that they hint at a need to improve upon GR and that it has been pushed past its limits - or ours.
I don't think CTCs are affected by block time, either. I have doubts that block time is a good way to think about time, though, given we actually experience change.
And yes, it is a theory, just not a scientific one, at the moment.
As to the article, I'm still confused by their shifting between the philosophical A and B theories
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (4) May 11, 2011Recent research on Stanford
http://www.physor...ies.html
shows geodetic precession and Frame dragging precession are measured in a 3D space in which satellite move. This is a prove that universal space is 3D. Time is definitely not dimension of space. Time is the numerical order of satellite motion.
In physics time is a mathematical dimension for description of satellite motion in space, but we have to be aware satellite moves in space only.
Change is the fundamental property of material world. Time that we measure with clocks is the numerical order of change, i.e. motion in space. In physical world time exists as the numerical order of change in space. In physics time is a mathematical dimension used for description of change in material world. It is an utter misunderstanding to think time is part of space and change run in time.
dnatwork
not rated yet May 11, 2011Ouch. You know, that was just a metaphor to help me visualize and describe the ideas in my head. There is no doubt that I understand nothing, so no comparison with Einstein is warranted, but I don't think anyone chided him for talking about elevators and trains.
If anything, you should have objected to the part about juice being returned to the universe. Another metaphor, clearly, but I failed to attribute it to Kung Fu Panda.
dnatwork
not rated yet May 11, 2011If gravity causes both the well and the bulge, doesn't this imply that gravity is both attractive (near the mass) and repulsive (far from the mass)? If that's true, and if gravity were described that way in the theory (I assume it is not; the cosmological constant is a fudge factor that Einstein did not like, right?), why would one need dark energy? That is, would there be anything left for dark energy to explain?
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) May 11, 2011Correct. It is a dimension of SPACE-TIME.
Except that the math was done in SPACE-TIME and if time is a numerical oder the math is still of SPACE-TIME and that won't go away by you repeating yourself.
No. We have to be aware that ALL the math was done in SPACE-TIME. None was done without taking TIME into account.
More
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) May 11, 2011Mirroring yet again to show the total lack of support of the claim.
CHANGE that we measure with clocks is the numerical order of TIME.
In physics change is bloody awkward to deal with time. What use is there to do things backasswards?
Except that the math all works and the experiments all support the math so you don't have anything there except bullshit.
How many times are you going to ignore the pertinent questions.
More
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) May 11, 2011Where is the evidence and math that makes this more a silly point of philosophy? That link did NOT support you. Indeed it shows you are being silly at best.
And before you send me another PM saying I don't have a clue, just see if you the questions. Or at least show what you think is wrong in what I said and give some evidence to support the claim. That link supported me not you because the physics was based on SPACE-TIME not just space.
Ethelred
Birdman25
not rated yet May 12, 2011consider the space that surrounds the person the 4 Dimension
consider TIME as the vibration of everything the 5 Dimension
each vibration holds an infinite amount of possibilities or probabilities therefore there are infinite Dimensions after time
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) May 12, 2011The conveyor belt concept has a serious problem in that it implies that light is slowed down instead of stretched out which is what is going on with gravitational redshift.
Those ideas seem to fit the evidence. Analogies can help or hinder. I don't get what you meant by 'block' so it sure doesn't help me at the moment.
Uh I was just passing over that part. It was in the conveyor belt post and I am presently trying to see if Amrit has any intention of ever making any sense.
More
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) May 12, 2011I simply have seen no advantage whatsoever by avoiding using TIME and trying to replace it with change. Amrit has said nothing that gives us a clue as to why anyone would want to do so. At present the best thing I can come up with about time is that it is a property of the universe we live and the only why is that it makes for a viable functional universe. Universes without time would indeed have everything happen at once. Once wouldn't even be an issue. Iterative processes like those that produced life can't happen in static universes.
Ethelred
Jnwaco
5 / 5 (4) May 12, 2011A "static universe" is precisely what physicists who take Minkowski Space too literally end up proposing. Then, philosophers glom onto the idea and argue that the B Theory of time is the correct view of time. Then, physiscists and philosophers would need to explain why we consciously experience a state of becoming instead of experiencing our past, present, and future all at once.
gall
5 / 5 (3) May 12, 2011Preliminary or not, it doesn't change the fact you are able to publish only in low-quality journals without impact factor and - evidently - without peer-review, if such poor papers, as yours, are published (I've checked your list of publications). Even Physics Essays has no impact factor, hence no impact on real science.
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2) May 12, 2011You seem to have confused my conveyor belt with someone else's block time.
If light is never slowed down, then why does is not escape a black hole? Is the idea that it is redshifted to an infinite wavelength, and somehow that explains why it can't get out? How is that different from being slowed down, really?
Or, it is still moving at c in its own frame of reference, and our perception of it from our frame is hindered?
dnatwork
not rated yet May 12, 2011hush1
1 / 5 (1) May 12, 2011There's a catch to that. As long as those two electrons are viewed separately and isolated, we hold to that claim. Otherwise not. Quantum states differ then.
Taking measure (of differences) smaller than Planck measure will inevitably lead to many discourses. You are witness to such a discourse. :)
QM and GTR bear many witnesses. Great thread to which I no longer participate. Seeing nothing new, call me shortsighted.
Pyle
3.4 / 5 (5) May 12, 2011My best answer is to go poke around on physicsforums.com in the astrophysics area. But barring actually looking for the right answer, here I go.
Gravity bends light. Light actually striking a point on the event horizon is bent enough that it just goes in a circle and doesn't leave.
There! An answer that avoids all the tricky questions. Who cares if it is right or not?
dnatwork
5 / 5 (1) May 12, 2011Excuse me if I should have said velocity. I'm not the difference matters when space itself is warped.
Pyle
3 / 5 (4) May 12, 2011Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) May 13, 2011Light always travels at C in a vacuum. It doesn't escape a Black Hole because there are no paths out of a Black Hole. Light always travels in a straight path in space-time, which is not the same as a straight path in space. With a Black Hole ALL paths are contained within the BH. Another was to look at it, an easier way, is that light is bent back into the BH.
Only if you assume that it is possible to point the light PERFECTLY out from the BH AND the BH is not spinning. Even a path that seems perpendicular to the surface of the BH can't leave the BH. It will just still just go around in a circle. Exactly as would happen in our Universe if it was closed.>>
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) May 13, 2011Light in a vacuum doesn't experience time. So I tend to think of it as not having a frame of reference. Now if we don't assume a perfect perpendicular THEN it would be moving at C in an orbit around the BH within the Event Horizon. Again if it started within the BH there is no path out.
And I may be completely full of shit on what happens at the Event Horizon. Inside I am pretty sure about. Outside isn't a problem. At the exact EH I suspect that questions about existence become kind of meaningless since time is at a standstill. Which I suppose means you can't produce a photon there to worry about.
Ethelred
Jnwaco
not rated yet May 13, 2011dnatwork
not rated yet May 13, 2011For me, that's why the conveyor belt analogy helps. If you go in any direction, there is a specific path you must follow, defined by Planck-sized units of space linked together in a chain. That chain loops back on itself eventually; near a black hole, it loops back before you get out.
I guess I would think of the event horizon as the interface between convection cells, only infinitely thin. It's basically the imaginary space between the real spaces where things happen, so nothing can happen there because nothing can exist. A border that is a human construct, an artifact of theory that we have named for our convenience.
AmritSorli
1.6 / 5 (7) May 21, 2011Gawad
5 / 5 (5) May 21, 2011ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) May 22, 2011What a buffoon.
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) May 22, 2011Uba - guardian of senses.
Hush - guardian of spelling.
@Gawad
Yes. Garbled communication.
The correct spelling to garbled word Chow:
Ciao
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) May 23, 2011I seriously doubt this and you have presented NO evidence to support it. As others have pointed out this has a frozen chicken in time stasis which is silly. Far more likely is that the minimum time interval is the Planck Interval and that change is constrained by that interval. Light cannot travel farther through space-time than the Planck Length.
These mindless posts of yours that only repeat the same philosophical based, no evidence supported, crap is pretty pathetic.
BACK YOURSELF UP. Deal with General Relativity. Tell us why we should replace time with change, what we gain from it. Evasion of this shows you as a Crank and not a scientist.
Ethelred
Jnwaco
1 / 5 (1) May 23, 2011At the same time, general relativity is constantly being interpreted beyond what observation would indicate (and in the case of consciousness, in direct contradiction to what we experience).
We do not experience ourselves as a 4D "worm" that has components in multiple time dimensions. We have no knowledge of the future, and the past is a fading memory.
That's why I'm still befuddled at the notions of this article and the title. If we remove time as a dimension, it explains a lot. General relativity is still valid and Makoski spacetime is still a convenient, accurate method of doing the calculations. But to take that too literally, beyond what we consciously experience (observe) has literally no scientific justification.
Obviously we experience the passage of time. We experience being in terms
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (4) May 24, 2011AmritSorli
1 / 5 (4) May 24, 2011Pyle
3.7 / 5 (6) May 24, 2011Cause Eth said it pretty well.
Skultch
4.2 / 5 (5) May 24, 2011I have come to the conclusion that you need to fire your translator. You clearly have not understood a single retort to your assertions. Darn it! I shouldn't use big words like retort and assertion.
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) May 24, 2011Damn!!! He's right! Amrit's right! I've just seen the light! No, seriously, look at this thread! Look at Amrit's POSTS! His posts provide the very proof he's desperately been trying to convey. Look at the THREAD! Nearly 500 posts (Lords of Kobol!) and all this TIME, Amrit has been posting without numerical order of MATERIAL CHANGE!
Uba, Amrit IS the FROZEN CHICKEN!
Pyle
3.7 / 5 (6) May 24, 2011See you tomorrow.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) May 24, 2011Does this mean he will live forever?
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) May 24, 2011Is the sequel to "Lost in Space"? (Lost in Frozen)
Everyone has chilled out here...
Well, almost everybody.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) May 25, 2011Seems that way...but only in the past :)
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) May 25, 2011ssriram
not rated yet May 27, 2011Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) May 27, 2011That is the problem with the article. It trys to replace TIME with CHANGE and makes no effort whatsoever to fix the mess that would make in physics. Thus it adds nothing of value to physics.
So are you a one hit wonder or will be sticking around? If your sticking around then welcome.
Ethelred
ssriram
not rated yet May 27, 2011This makes me think even mass is not measured directly/correctly. In a balance we measure weight which is mass times gravity. What if the gravity is not same as on the both sides of the pans? As it is proved gravity is not same in every point on earth(from my 6th std physics book).
I think for certain class of physics time need not be considered as a dimension or consciousness of dimensions are not reqd, so this will never affect those. It will be gr8 If they can only give a easily understandable way for their article and a 6th std student can understand and solve his textbook problem.
I had this question from when I was a kid, Why unit of time is measured in an absurd way (100ms=1s, 60s=1m, 60m=1h, 24h=1d, 365.25d=1y)? Is there a base 10 system for time?
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) May 27, 2011No. We measure MASS in a balance. A spring scale measures weight. Increase gravity and a spring scale changes, a balance doesn't.
Then its a lousy measurement which will change if you move the device.>>
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) May 27, 2011I think there was an example or two on the thread. Also some attempts to HIDE time while hoping that no one would notice the trick. For instance a balance is dependent on time as it take time to put the weights on and time for the movement to damp out.
Because the Babylonians used multiple bases and Earth based time units. Base twelve, ten, and 360 and maybe I missed a couple. The key base was twelve. Then later shorter intervals were added in using base 10.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) May 27, 2011However to get back to the article. You have only touched on part of the idea. The other was that time is a numerically ordered measure of change and not a physical measurement. Which is silly. It can be considered as a numerical series but it is time that constrains the amount of change and not the other way around and Amrit is unwilling to deal with that reality. That is why any attempt to replace TIME with CHANGE is doomed to look as stupid as digging a hole in water.
Ethelred
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) May 27, 2011Gawad
5 / 5 (2) May 27, 2011ssriram
3 / 5 (2) May 27, 2011I tried to put myself as a 6th grade student and thought of this stuff. But It seems you need atleast one clock that runs _independently_ to backup all that we learnt. But if you think everything is relative, you kind of land up in a noman's land and somebody has to re-explain all the stuff.
I guess current system of time helps us to understand stuff easily(relative). Someone has to re-explain for this system.
I thought a balance, balances the forces on the pans and the pointer moves due to the resultant torque.
ssriram
1 / 5 (1) May 27, 2011At 0 sec the body is at 0, at 1 sec it is at 5, at 2 sec the body is at 10, etc.
I think what they mean by time as a change of state
The body is at some point, lets say that as 0s,
the body is at 5m, lets call that 1s,
the body is at 10m, lets call that 2s, etc,
Now qn comes how you give 1s for 5m? answer is using a clock, where each tick(movement) is mapped to something that moves or something thats at rest apparently(the observer)
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) May 27, 2011ssriram
3 / 5 (2) May 27, 20111. Think you are learning physics
2. Strike the line in your physics book that says Time is a physical qty' and replace it with 'Time is a sensibly measurable qty'
3. Think of problems where you map time with some state, and where time seems to drive the motion. Now replace that thought with motion being independent and time being attributes given to different states.
4. Now solve them. There is no difference(mathematically) in both the methods, only logically you assume time is some name given to a certain state.
Its kind of works like a primary_key<->foreign_key in a database. I find it easy to understand by relating it to database, as I am a developer working on the backend.
ssriram
not rated yet May 27, 2011"1s = 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." -from wikipedia
While defining time they must stop using words like duration and period. They meant PERIOD to be CYCLES/OSCILLATIONS here.
I don't know why they arrived to a particular number. What are the two hyperfine levels?
Pyle
3 / 5 (4) May 27, 2011Gawad: regarding base 10 and base 12. Our number system is base 10. This kind of killed base 12. Maybe it was our fingers and toes that did it, but pi, e, sqrt(2) don't get any easier in a duodecimal system. And adding the 11th and 12th digits makes adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing quite a bit harder.
ssriram
not rated yet May 27, 2011ssriram
not rated yet May 27, 2011Gawad
not rated yet May 27, 2011Also, while your objection is quite correct as far as doing base 12 math using only 10 base symbols, if you add 2 extra unique symbols to base ten to make it base 12 (0, $, &, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, $0, $1...) then drill multiplication tables into your head like you did with base ten, then adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing are no harder or easier, IMO.
Gawad
not rated yet May 27, 2011ssriram
not rated yet May 27, 2011Gawad
5 / 5 (1) May 27, 2011Gawad
not rated yet May 27, 2011Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) May 27, 2011Spin Up vs. Spin Down. A very tiny difference in the energy levels of the atom due to the spins of the electrons and the nucleus being alligned or non-aligned.
I guess that isn't 1000 characters. Oh darn.
Then again I guess it isn't very useful either.
Still it is the difference.
Ethelred
hush1
1 / 5 (1) May 27, 2011"lernt" is german.
"learnt" is your misspelling - (understood by all)
"learned" the correct version.
Any misspellings or omissions are all cosmetic.
And NOT why I am pointing this out.
How many languages are running parallel inside you?
I'm multilingual.
And that is the way I view how we 'operate'.
Question: What parallel languages are running inside you?
This has no bearing on discourse. I ask out of curiosity.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) May 28, 2011We can think without using language. You seem to be of the opinion that we can only think within the words we know. But that isn't true. There would never be any new words if that was the case.
Thinking outside the box includes thinking outside the language. Which can be done mathematically or visually or by using physical tools, which is essentially visually but sometimes tactile. Or even sleeping on it.
Words may be how you make a living but they really shouldn't be a hard limit to your thinking.
Ethelred
ssriram
5 / 5 (2) May 28, 2011"The learned learnt that what they learnt was not learned by others" Lolz. :P
I am from India, I know Tamil, Hindi, Sanskrit, French(a bit) English(Ind, UK, US).
@Ethelred You are right, Languages just help people to express their ideas, thoughts and feelings.
hush1
3.7 / 5 (3) May 28, 2011I agree with both of you.
Thank you both for indulging my curiosity.
The reward is insight. Whether there are words for this or not.
lol@Lolz. Wonderful.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2011Anything and everything that starts at whatever this expression expresses has order and place a priori.
Be gone T, be gone.