The Relativity of Time

[dumbest man on earth]

*Note to Moderators*

My idea of heaven Motor Mouth, is to be sitting back with a can of VB or Fosters, listening to my favourite Angel singing...
Yes yes Motor Mouth, I believe in angels....
here........

- the following is from : http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=33

Behaviour that may get you banned
Personal attacks on another member, including name-calling.
...
Referring to other members
4. Refer to other members by their chosen screen names. The deliberate alteration of a member’s name to insult or demean him or her is unacceptable.

-the ^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=33

But...these infractions are committed by paddoboy, so...

 

[Motor Daddy]

I'll stick to the world's greatest female top selling recording artist of all time....Nana!!!

More BS from the paddoboy. As usual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists

There is 1 female at the top of sales with a claimed more than 250 million music sold, and that is Madonna. There are more females below that in the range of 200-249 million sold, but still no Nana. Who is this Nana, "the world's greatest female top selling recording artist of all time" which you speak of????

 

[paddoboy]

There is 1 female at the top of sales with a claimed more than 250 million music sold, and that is Madonna. There are more females below that in the range of 200-249 million sold, but still no Nana. Who is this Nana, "the world's greatest female top selling recording artist of all time" which you speak of????

http://prince.org/msg/8/401400

 

[Motor Daddy]

Here is some real music for your listening pleasure...

[video=youtube;1DzsPJYWeCw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1DzsPJYWeCw[/video]

[video=youtube;30ou_v0QSPY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=30ou_v0QSPY[/video]

 

[dav57]

Length doesn't 'exist' without 'stuff'. There would be nothing to measure against if the universe didn't contain 'stuff' (perhaps we ought to call this 'stuff' 'mass' or even 'energy' considering mass is actually energy bundled up in a special kind of way). Length (or distance), therefore, is merely a measurement, not a real 'thing'. Length is a representation of one piece of 'stuff' compared to another piece of 'stuff' and is simply a comparison tool. Length doesn't 'exist' as a derived component of the big bang, it's just a measurement in terms of arbitrary, comparative units. Agreed, those measurements may change depending on where you're looking from, but the 'stuff' itself remains unchanged from its own perspective.

Time is a measurement tool, too. Time isn't a requirement of the universe; it's a consequence. No 'stuff' means there's nothing to measure in terms of comparative change. Time doesn't exist without mass or energy and it only 'appears' to dilate when measured from different perspectives. Clocks can only be made from mass, or energy (light), and it is those elements that undergo change. When two atomic clocks are synchronised, separated and forced into different environments, the physical components (energy and mass) behave differently and undergo change depending on external forces such as acceleration and gravity and the movement through the fabric of space. Many still say that time has dilated and not the components which comprise the makings of a clock? Weird.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Length doesn't 'exist' without 'stuff'.

Space is volume, which is infinite 3 dimensional distance, which is inevitable. There are distinct separate points in space. There is distance between those points. The meter is defined as the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Objects can travel in space, and that is called motion, which occurs over a duration of time. So objects travel in space over a duration of time, and we call it motion, and we measure that motion with rulers and stop watches.

Not weird. Normal.

 

[dav57]

Space is volume, which is infinite 3 dimensional distance, which is inevitable. There are distinct separate points in space. There is distance between those points. The meter is defined as the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Objects can travel in space, and that is called motion, which occurs over a duration of time. So objects travel in space over a duration of time, and we call it motion, and we measure that motion with rulers and stop watches.

There's nothing I disagree with there MD. But you're merely describing the motion of mass and energy, which I agree is normal, and then saying that we can measure and compare incremental changes between mass and energy using arbitrary units which mathematically describe distance and time. I agree with you.

But you need at least two bits of 'stuff' - a source and an observer - both comprising of mass or energy before you can 'measure' or make a comparison or draw a conclusion based on some arbitrary units that help define and compare the difference between the two. In addition, a fundamental requirement of time measurement is that you are able to use something which oscillates reliably against something else which oscillates regularly in its own frame of reference. Those two prerequisites are mass and/or energy and without them time doesn't exist.

So time IS energy. If the math tells you that time dilates then it's really telling you that energy dilates, which we know it does in a gravitational field. Mass also changes in a gravitational field as does the relative length between mass.

Mass and energy are the real components whereas length and time are arbitrarily unit-defined comparative measurement tools which don't actually 'exist'.

I don't think science will get much further without acceptance of this. It appears fairly straightforward to me but then again, perhaps I'm an idiot!

 

[Motor Daddy]

So time IS energy.

No, time is not energy. There are two different factors in motion, distance traveled and duration of travel.

If you run a 100 meter dash, the 100 meters is already measured out. There are two points, the start point and the end point. You start at the start point and you measure the time of travel until you are at the end point.

You can run the 100 meter dash in 10 seconds, or you can run the 100 meters in 20 seconds. In either case, the distance traveled is the same, and the time is different.

You can also sit at the start line for an hour or two, and never move the 100 meters. Time elapsed, but your location didn't change relative to the earth. But it changed relative to space in those 2 hours.

So you can be at rest on earth, and in motion in space...at the same time.

 

[origin]

There's nothing I disagree with there MD.

If you ever feel this way about a statement in physics that MD said then a red flag should go up.

So time IS energy. If the math tells you that time dilates then it's really telling you that energy dilates, which we know it does in a gravitational field. Mass also changes in a gravitational field as does the relative length between mass.

So:

$$E = t = mc^2$$?

Looking at the units we get:

$$ sec = \frac{kg-m^2}{sec^2}$$

The results are nothing but nonsense I'm afraid.

 

[Motor Daddy]

The results are nothing but nonsense I'm afraid.

What do you make of 0.999...=1?

The left side is infinite, and the right side is finite, and there is an equal sign between the two sides, which means, infinite=finite, right?

Nonsense, I'm afraid.

A real red flag is when your user name appears on the screen. Alert Alert Alert, fabricated BS to follow, as indicated by the username "origin."

 

[wellwisher]

Here is a consideration, concerning time and relativity, that few may have considered. I saw this 10 years ago and it shapes my thinking of time.

If you look at special relativity, in light of the assumption, that the laws of physics are the same in all references, some interesting inferences can be drawn. The best way to see these, is to compare two references, side by side, say one reference at earth speed, and the other near the speed of light, similar to the conditions of the twin experiment.

If either reference was to watch the other, it would notice the laws of physics appear to change. For example, forces act at different rates in each reference. The same light source appears to have different colors with one hotter. Even the biology of their bodies work at different rates. if you could reach out and touch the other reference, even inertia appears different with the faster reference offering more resistance to change. If they were to then meet in a single reference, say the earth reference, many of these changes would be permanent, showing up as differences in each twin.

If the laws of physics are the same in all references, and since special relativity only uses relativistic mass, distance and time to explain these differences as well as the permanent changes, then all the laws of the physics can be theoretically modeled with only mass, distance and time relativity. These three variables, are sufficient, to model the millions of changes that will occur, when the two reference meet in one reference.

The net effect is a theoretical way to simplify all the laws of physics into only three variables. I called this the MDT theory (mass, distance and time potential) The hardest part was defining mass, distance and time potential so these could be used a global variables.

This is subtle, so let me approach this differently. Say the two twins meet and we notice one is younger, but we did not yet know about special relativity. We could explain these differences by tweaking all the physics variables. But this would get very complicated since trillions of cells, metals, ceramics, plastics would also show changes at different rates. Even statistics would need a tweak.

But once you include special relativity, the same can be done with only three variables. All I am saying is, this is a very powerful way to organize physics and chemistry into a pocket size app. But it needs the concept of time to play a more global role. If you solve all the physics equations for time and take the summation of effects, one begins to approximate the type of global time variable to needed to model physics in three variables.

 

[dav57]

Oops, sorry guys, I meant to say that time is directly and intrinsically linked to energy, not that time actually equals energy - I understand they are two different concepts. To use the time measurement tool to measure something you must have some kind of energy (usually light) to measure with, and so without energy to use as a measuring tool you may as well concede that the thing you are trying to measure doesn't even exist, let alone trying to measure it!

All I'm saying is that without energy there is nothing to measure and time is moot. Without mass there is no distance, surely you agree with that? So time and distance are only measurement tools and can't be considered prerequisites of our universe. But energy and mass can still undergo change without needing time to do so. We only use time to measure how something changed compared to something else.

 

[origin]

What do you make of 0.999...=1?

Looks good.

The left side is infinite, and the right side is finite, and there is an equal sign between the two sides, which means, infinite=finite, right?

No, the left side is not infinite. I am afraid that you do not understand the term infinite.

Nonsense, I'm afraid.

Your math teachers and mathematicians in general would say your analysis is wrong and you don't understand basic math.

A real red flag is when your user name appears on the screen. Alert Alert Alert, fabricated BS to follow, as indicated by the username "origin."

But if mathematicians who make a living through math say you are wrong and I am right, who is the one spouting BS. I know, all the math profesionals are wrong and the car mechanic is right.

 

[origin]

Oops, sorry guys, I meant to say that time is directly and intrinsically linked to energy, not that time actually equals energy - I understand they are two different concepts.

OK

To use the time measurement tool to measure something you must have some kind of energy (usually light) to measure with, and so without energy to use as a measuring tool you may as well concede that the thing you are trying to measure doesn't even exist, let alone trying to measure it!

All I'm saying is that without energy there is nothing to measure and time is moot. Without mass there is no distance, surely you agree with that? So time and distance are only measurement tools and can't be considered prerequisites of our universe. But energy and mass can still undergo change without needing time to do so. We only use time to measure how something changed compared to something else.

The universe is a space time continuum. If you don't measure space or time they still exist. If there is no mass then there is no way to gage distances that does not mean there are no spacial dimensions. Likewise with time, even without any way to measure time the temporal dimensions still exists.

 

[paddoboy]

OK
The universe is a space time continuum. If you don't measure space or time they still exist. If there is no mass then there is no way to gage distances that does not mean there are no spacial dimensions. Likewise with time, even without any way to measure time the temporal dimensions still exists.

How many different non mainstream alternative explanations do we have now?...All claiming supremacy, all claiming to be right, all claiming mainstream interpretation as wrong.....AND, none ever having the guts to be peer reviewed!

Origin has summed it up beautifully.....space and time, space/time exist independent of anyone or anything. To claim otherwise is just a gutless copout.

 

[Declan Lunny]

If time and/or space do not exist, and you really believe that, then please try to describe the physical universe without reference one or the other. I don't think anyone will be able to without recourse to both. If you can not remove it from reality, than you must accept they are real.

Regardless of the philosophical gobbledygook and sophistry, if you can't even posit a reality that doesn't require time or space, they by, fiat, are real. From that point you can nitpick the metaphysics about the "nature" of time if that amuses you..

 

[Maxila]

How many different non mainstream alternative explanations do we have now?...All claiming supremacy, all claiming to be right, all claiming mainstream interpretation as wrong.....AND, none ever having the guts to be peer reviewed!

Origin has summed it up beautifully.....space and time, space/time exist independent of anyone or anything. To claim otherwise is just a gutless copout.

If time and/or space do not exist, and you really believe that, then please try to describe the physical universe without reference one or the other. I don't think anyone will be able to without recourse to both. If you can not remove it from reality, than you must accept they are real.

Regardless of the philosophical gobbledygook and sophistry, if you can't even posit a reality that doesn't require time or space, they by, fiat, are real. From that point you can nitpick the metaphysics about the "nature" of time if that amuses you..

OK



The universe is a space time continuum. If you don't measure space or time they still exist. If there is no mass then there is no way to gage distances that does not mean there are no spacial dimensions. Likewise with time, even without any way to measure time the temporal dimensions still exists.

The only thing that can undeniably be said to exist is energy; descriptions such as mass, time, and space are ways we can define, analyze, measure and communicate about various states and dynamics of energy. After all what is mass but the description for a quantity of energy, space and time are the dynamical descriptions of energy. Without energy they all have no meaning or existence.

Examine a singularity, it has mass but no time or space, almost certainly because empirically time is always the description for a change of position in a space. It’s no wonder without a spatial dimension, time is said not to exist too. Personally I side with the arguments of physicists that say a singularity is beyond the domain of GR and its calculation is mathematical nonsense. In other words energy always exists is a state where descriptions like mass, time and space have a real meaning too.

I can play semantics saying time, space, or mass must be real and challenge people to describe a universe without them. On the other hand I can equally claim they are not real and they describe what is real, energy of different states and its interactions. Arguing either point is futile as it only depends on meaning. We should always remember energy is the underlying reality these terms represent and without its existence nothing else can really exist.

 

[paddoboy]

The only thing that can undeniably be said to exist is energy; descriptions such as mass, time, and space are ways we can define, analyze, measure and communicate about various states and dynamics of energy. After all what is mass but the description for a quantity of energy, space and time are the dynamical descriptions of energy. Without energy they all have no meaning or existence.

The energy you speak of arose from and appears to be inherent to the space and time, which are are far more then just ways of defining and analyzing.You say mass is just a description of energy...Likewise energy is just mass under extremes of temperatures and pressures where mass cannot exist as mass.
Mass evolved from energy, which in turn evolved from the Superforce, which evolved with the space and time.
And once again, we by necessity arrive back at space and time.

Examine a singularity, it has mass but no time or space, almost certainly because empirically time is always the description for a change of position in a space. It’s no wonder without a spatial dimension, time does not exist too.

The gravitational singularity from whence the BB arose, is completely unknown, and whatever exists in there, may have mass, but certainly not in that form...Likewise space and time may very well exist in a form unknown to us. We don't know.

I can play semantics saying time, space, or mass must be real and challenge people to describe a universe without them. On the other hand I can equally claim they are not real and they describe what is real, energy of different states and its interactions. Arguing either point is futile as it only depends on meaning. We should always remember energy is the underlying reality these terms represent and without its existence nothing else can really exist.

I see space and time as the most basic fundamentals of the Universe, the rest, energy, gravity, matter, all arose in one form or another from space/time. Without space and time, logically, nothing else could exist...no energy, no nothing.
Anything else is semantics.

 

[dav57]

I think I agree with Maxila in that energy is the underlying fundamental prerequisite to time and space. I also believe there is another as yet unknown component of space which is ubiquitous and fabric-like and potentially could be the enabler or carrier of energy. I can't see how time could have possible existed prior to anything of any substance existing in the first instant.

Origin - You said "If you don't measure space or time they still exist". My point is that you don't actually measure 'time'. What you are measuring when you 'think' you are measuring time is really a physical relationship, or a comparison, of two events using arbitrarily chosen units which does nothing more than count the number of oscillations taking place in a given, agreed reference frame.

As a side note, nothing 'exists' until you look at. The very act of looking at something is performing a type of measurement. If you don't look at something and it has no effect on your little place in the universe then effectively you can say it doesn't even exist. So when you say "If you don't measure space or time they still exist", no, they actually don't exist as far as you're concerned. For example, consider the birth of a star billions of light years away. Until you actually observe its birth (thus when your perceived measurement begins) could you actually say that the star existed prior to observation? I think not, simply because it hasn't had an effect on your part of the universe.

So time is a measuring tool and requires energy as the prerequisite and communication vehicle, not the other way around.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

The universe is a space time continuum.

Not quite sure that I Grok that statement, origin.

I was taught that "space-time or space-time continuum" was a name given to any abstract mathematical or theoretical "model/construct/representation" of the real Universe that combined the the 3-dimensional spatial coordinates and time as a 4th coordinate.