Does time exist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Q-reeus said:
actually you forgot to check where that spelling error started here.
...
You are unwittingly condemning a buddy!
Click to expand...
I didn't miss that, no.

Do you define everything as loyalty-to-friend or attack-on-foe? I don't.

Q-reeus said:
what does my 'sin'
Click to expand...
No need to take it personally. It wasn't directed specifically at you, simply at the last incident.

But it does not help your case that you're simply trying to tear others down. So yeah, you'v built a glass house.

Q-reeus said:
...actually contribute to the physics issues in contention.
Click to expand...
Here's a wake-up: try counting my posts in this thread and in Michael's other time threads.
 
DaveC426913 said:
I didn't miss that, no.

Do you define everything as loyalty-to-friend or attack-on-foe? I don't.
Click to expand...
No but that admission suggests that is what you are engaged in here.
No need to take it personally. It wasn't directed specifically at you, simply at the last incident.
Click to expand...
Then why only quote me? Don't bother answering - it's obvious why.
But it does not help your case that you're simply trying to tear others down. So yeah, you'v built a glass house.
Click to expand...
That's rich. Both you and the other two I have engaged with recently spend a lot of time ripping into others here. Occasionally justified.
If you like dishing it out, be prepared to cop some back too. And your mischaracterization 'simply trying to tear others down' is more nonsense. In all instances it was a case of calling out actual relevant errors. If that is 'tearing others down' in your estimation, time for some self-reflection on your part.
Here's a wake-up: try counting my posts in this thread and in Michael's other time threads.
Click to expand...
I severely doubt any of which were relevant to the recent issues under dispute - which is what I suggested you meaningfully deal with. Won't hold my breath.
 
Q-reeus said:
You presume I am somehow 'grumpy' for taking you to task for propagating error(s) here.
Click to expand...
I haven't made any errors in this thread, and frankly I doubt you're equipped to notice them if I were to make one.

I never claimed light signals had to be specifically manifested in a given instance of nonsimultaneity - that was your insinuation.
Click to expand...
*sigh*

Remember where you started with this? I wrote "The relativity of simultaneity, for instance, has nothing to do with signalling delays or light travel time".

You explicitly quoted only that line from the post it was in and attempted to take me to task for my supposed "error". Refer to your own post #2187 if you can't remember. It wasn't very long ago.

Now, you say "I never claimed light signals had to be specifically manifested in a given instance of nonsimultaneity".

So, what's going on with you now?

You have apparently back-tracked to the point where you now admit that signalling delays involving light signals aren't necessarily involved in problems involving the relativity of simultaneity. From here, it's only a short step to get you to agree with my initial statement that relativity of simultaneity has nothing to do with signalling delays - not just some of the time, like you admit, but all of the time, like I original stated.

Yet signal delay, at light speed, is integral to how the concept was established - I'm repeating that here.
Click to expand...
I commented explicitly on this irrelevancy in an earlier post.

Sure, Einstein might have used a thought experiment that involved light signals or whatever to draw conclusions about the relativity of simultaneity. If you want to discuss the historical development of the subject we can do that separately. But it has nothing to do with the statement you got all heated about in the first place.
 
James R said:
I haven't made any errors in this thread, and frankly I doubt you're equipped to notice them if I were to make one.


*sigh*

Remember where you started with this? I wrote "The relativity of simultaneity, for instance, has nothing to do with signalling delays or light travel time".

You explicitly quoted only that line from the post it was in and attempted to take me to task for my supposed "error". Refer to your own post #2187 if you can't remember. It wasn't very long ago.

Now, you say "I never claimed light signals had to be specifically manifested in a given instance of nonsimultaneity".

So, what's going on with you now?

You have apparently back-tracked to the point where you now admit that signalling delays involving light signals aren't necessarily involved in problems involving the relativity of simultaneity. From here, it's only a short step to get you to agree with my initial statement that relativity of simultaneity has nothing to do with signalling delays - not just some of the time, like you admit, but all of the time, like I original stated.


I commented explicitly on this irrelevancy in an earlier post.

Sure, Einstein might have used a thought experiment that involved light signals or whatever to draw conclusions about the relativity of simultaneity. If you want to discuss the historical development of the subject we can do that separately. But it has nothing to do with the statement you got all heated about in the first place.
Click to expand...
You have this 'gift' of artfully reinterpreting clear statements, always to your advantage. The record is there and anyone can go over if interested. I expect no-one here will be. My #2187 is correct. Just two things nail the fact of nonsimultaneity - a finite value for c, and that c is a relativistic invariant i.e. (inertial) frame-independent. The first mentioned automatically implies signal delay is integral as basic principle, to the phenomenon of nonsimultaneity. But your #2203 reinforces to me the futility of continued exchange with you on this.
Therefore I suggest we cease further exchanges on this matter.
 
Q-reeus said:
You have this 'gift' of artfully reinterpreting clear statements, always to your advantage.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the compliment. :D

The record is there and anyone can go over if interested.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Just two things nail the fact of nonsimultaneity - a finite value for c, and that c is a relativistic invariant i.e. (inertial) frame-independent.
Click to expand...
We also need the postulate that the laws of physics are relativistically invariant, but with that proviso I agree with you.

The first mentioned automatically implies signal delay is integral as basic principle, to the phenomenon of nonsimultaneity.
Click to expand...
I think you've given up your initial objection at this point and really are just using words to obfuscate.

The original context in which I made the comment that you objected to was something that Michael 345 wrote, that implied that the relativity of simultaneity is explained by the time that light takes to travel from one place to another. You and I both know that's wrong (at least, I assume you know that). Will you admit that Michael was wrong and you only posted because you saw what you thought was an opportunity to show I was wrong about something?

If not, we can always take the matter up again on the next occasion you think you can take me down on an argument about physics. I have no doubt you'll find a suitable pretext sooner or later.
 
The properties of time are: duration and interval (period).

The properties of space are: extension, distance (1D), area (2D) and volume (3D).
 
TIME AND COMMON SENSE

Common sense is the sum of all senses. Common sense tells us that the Sun revolves around the Earth, when in fact it is the Earth that revolves around the Sun. Observations of common sense must be verified.

For example:

1- Time flows. (T)
Phenomena occur continuously from before to after.

2- Time is what clocks measure. (T)
In clocks we see a periodic phenomenon of uniform rhythm.

3- A minute of pain lasts longer than a minute of pleasure. (F)

4- Time flows in only one direction, from the start to the end of the events. (T)
The life of people (and all animals) runs from birth (start) to death (end), never the other way around.

5- Time is divided into past, present and future. (T)
Time is the dimension that organizes events in past, present and future.

6- Only present exists. (T)
It is true, but events could not progress without a previous past and a later future.
 
Asexperia said:
Ok. What is the difference?
Click to expand...
Sense is a cognitive activity. Does not require input from senses.

I stole and sandwich from a fellow employee. My common sense tells me that, if he were to find out it's me, he's gonna punch me in the nose. No senses required.

Likewise, a common layperson understands, generally, how gravity works and why we don't fall off the bottom of the Earth. We are a little ways beyond "I only believe what I can see with my eyes."
 
CHANGES AND INTERVAL SEPARATED

I asked a friend if he believed in the existence of time. He replied that time is an invention of man. He was referring to hours, minutes, seconds and calendar. This is an example of the separation between changes and time intervals.

True, man invented clocks, but these devices work independently of their creator's mind.
Magnitive Dualism admits the existence of both change and the period or time interval in which changes occur.

To deny time (intervals) is to deny that things have a start and an end and that duration can be divided into equal intervals. It is also to feed a feeling of eternity (a priori) rooted in people's mind.

For the philosopher Henri Bergson duration (changes) is subjective and rejected the mathematical time. Philochrony fuses the two elements of time: change-interval.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top