The Relativity of Time
- Thread starter Nightshift
- Start date
What does that mean?
Have you been "playing games"?
Is what you said, in your Post #212 :
Was that you stating factual knowledge, or was that you just "playing games"?
As for myself, the only "game" that I care to ever play is billiards (preferably, Snooker), but I cannot do that from this Hospital bed.
Straight up, paddoboy, be open and honest - what exactly are you trying to say?
I have not been "playing games" with you. If you have been "playing games" with me, then you should explain yourself and apologize for "playing" those "games".
If you do not to do that, then you would still be "playing games".
I have tried many times to have "normal discussions" with you - only to be accused of many heinous things, not the least of which is being a liar! When I ask for proof of your accusations , you never supply any!
Why should I accept this : "Let's both from here on in, stop playing games shall we?" ; without anything from you to prove your sincerity?
Will this Post just elicit more assertions and name calling from you?
You sure have fooled me along with a few other people then dmoe.......
I'm rather tired of your passive aggressive tactics as well as the sanctimonious "holier then thou" attitude you project.
This has also been noted by a mod in another thread.
Good bye dmoe....the thread is yours, OK?
I'll try my damdest not to reply anymore to the sanctimonious crap you post.
So..., then you are going to continue to play your "games"?
The BB in the first instant, was an evolution of space and time, and whatever impetus/energy/ZPE that drove the evolution/expansion of the Universe/space/time. Mass at that stage could not exist under those extremes of pressures and temperatures.
The energy seems to me to be a property of the space and time.
The rest seems to be philosophical musings.
Firstly what you appear to be describing is a mathematical singularity. But we also have a physical singularity, which is the Planck volume itself, and whatever exists there, in whatever form is still a mystery
I actually see the semantics, as trying to do away with space and time and their basic underlying reality.
Again the best I could relent and say, is that discussing the reality or otherwise of time is a debatable issue.
The evolution of the Universe, entailing space, time, energy, gravity, matter, are all in my opinion connected.
Take away one, and the whole disappears
Again this is supported in the following statement, and one in which I see the utmost simplistic description [Occams Razor]
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I'm pretty sure it is Sten Odenwald, as I did come across it a while back.
That single statement, supports exactly my position and what I see as the mainstream position also.
To measure time, requires energy??
I disagree...In fact I see it as needing time to make a measure of energy.
The way I see it,at best, time is as real as space, and both evolved from the BB...at worst, its reality or otherwise, is a debatable subject, more into philosophical musings than anything else.
This I think illustrates why time is paradoxical.paddoboy said:
Suppose that measurement of anything does require energy, which does make sense because measurement increases information or is some amount of information.
Information is physical and if time is something intrinsic to measurement, in that without time measurement isn't possible, then the physical information gained from measurement seems unlikely to be time itself (if time is intrinsic). If we also suppose that time is not something measurable then we must measure change instead. Time would therefore not be physical (if the assumptions hold).
And also debatable.
An Interesting question I would ask, is does time make entropy, or does entropy make time?
I would logically say that time makes entropy, and entropy just goes along for the ride, so to speak.
This was one of Hawkings's arrows of time from his book, BHoT.
That gives time some meaning and existence.
And also debatable.
An Interesting question I would ask, is does time make entropy, or does entropy make time?
I would logically say that time makes entropy, and entropy just goes along for the ride, so to speak.
Your logic is flawed , obviously since you haven't given any proof that time has any physical properties BEFORE any action(s) by objects taken
Time is a consequence not a preceding efficacy towards any object(s) at all
No, time along with space and any inherent energies of that space, was the foundation of the Universe we see today.
Nothing preceded it as far as we know.
See the BB/Inflationary model of Universal evolution.
How about entropy?
So, you have a new theory of the evolution of the Universe?
Don't forget the scientific method and peer review!
Otherwise, you are just pushing shit uphill.
How about entropy , what has this got to do with time ?
Also I asked this ages ago , can you drain an atom completely of energy ?
If you can't , then the Universe recycles
I agree with all of what you said there but just to expand. I think that the very act of observing something is a type of measurement in itself, even if you don't attribute what you see with numbers and units. By looking at something, you have received data (not information - data and information are different I think). Data is anything which you receive as an input but haven't a clue what it is (it just affects you) whereas information is data that has been converted or organised into an understandable format. Moving on....It makes sense to me that you can't make a distinction between data being emitted from A and landing at B (a human with a brain who can assemble the data into meaningful, measurable information), or landing at C (a rock). The fact remains that B and C received the data means they both observed the data. The source emitting the energy has no clue what happens with the data emitted but the data has been received and has acted upon an external object - they are now connected and data can flow from source to observer using energy. If the human (or rock) hasn't connected with the source via energy and started to receive data then they may as well be in different universes and their existence is irrelevant. That's why nothing exists until you observe (or are connected to) it via energy.
Although we say we do "measure time", this may not be true.dav57 said:
A clock is a physical system which can be said to "output" regular information as motion (e.g. a simple pendulum). The periodicity of a clock is what we see as changes in direction (for a pendulum in motion), or changes in value (for say, a digital clock), and these are regular rather than random; devices which output random information don't make very good clocks.
So what are we measuring, and if measurement "uses up" time, then what's left over, type of thing?
No, I understand data is another word for information. Information (abstractly) doesn't have any intrinsic value or "meaning", these are extrinsic properties, usually an agreed protocol or encoding by sender and receiver.
If you receive some message and don't understand it, you still have the information in the message.
Completely agree. Do you know, when I was on this forum several years ago, not many people at all would buy into the theory that time doesn't exist. Revisiting and looking through a few threads it appears that far more people are beginning to accept that time is a consequence and a measurement tool, just as length or distance is. I find this fairly promising. does anyone know whether JamesR has changed his mind yet?
Time has a source and that is all that experiences time. Without something experiencing time, there is no time. With energy, there is negative time. With antienergy, there is antitime. A time graph shows all of life coming toward the bio time biosphere .... of time and therefore time is radiative. time has mass and energy and emery and matter. Time has matter. time has energy. Time has mass = Ek (kinetic energy). Time has a kinetic sphere. Time is relative to speed. Time is relative to everything in all equations. Time makes no sense without the sphere of the mind. Without mental energy within the universe time would be at the bottom and space would have no time relativity. Highlands...! Without time, there is no sense of space. Time is found on all dimensions. Time therefore has a root in the highest dimensions.
No it wasn't. And I've told you this plenty times. In the first instant, there was no space or time, no geometry.
In geometrogenesis, geometry is recognized after the Planck Epoch, that nice little time you keep quoting, but it also had to undergo a unified electrostrong phase before it finally got into electroweak symmetry breaking, allowing mass and by definition the geometry. It makes space, time (geometry) and matter emergent. It also would imply time is emergent.