The Relativity of Time

The Universe/space/time is a real physical entity......
It exhibits experimentally verified concepts like the Casimir effect, ZPE, and the CC and DE
In my own simplistic language, it also exhibits gravity, and matter.
And as Sten Odenwald has said, remove anyone of these, and you remove the lot.
All these entities affect us everyday one way or the other, and there are plenty of arguments for their obvious existence as has been illustrated here.
The arguments against though, consist of meta physical philosophical concepts with little natural observation or experimental results and maths.
 
I have already informed you that sometimes astronomers/cosmologists are lazy and take short cuts and their replies do lack intricate detail....plus of course journalistic license.
Your's purposely reflect that.

But what I may do to help you out with this continuing closet anti mainstream stance you take, [or is that an anti paddoboy stance :)]
is E-Mail Sten, and ask for some detail and latest thoughts.
I have E-Mailed him before, along with Mitch Begalman and have received helpful replies.

See what a helpful fellow I am to those les fortunate? :)

My sympathies go out to you, paddoboy.

Repeating delusions, fantasies, misconceptions, false impressions...etc., ad nauseam, do not make them real , paddoboy.
After existing for 3-score and 10 orbits of this little blue-green planet around Sol, most anyone else would have realized that fact, paddoboy.

The only confusion that I have experienced on this Forum, is how you seem not to have "learnt" that obvious fact.

paddoboy, I would prefer that you no longer proffer any discourse with me.

Thank you, and goodbye.
 
My sympathies go out to you, paddoboy.

Repeating delusions, fantasies, misconceptions, false impressions...etc., ad nauseam, do not make them real , paddoboy.
After existing for 3-score and 10 orbits of this little blue-green planet around Sol, most anyone else would have realized that fact, paddoboy.



It's funny dmoe, it's you that has been accused by others of those less then complimentary qualities, not me.
If you are referring to my E-Mails, I have also E-Mailed Hawking, Kaku and Thorne, but only receiving a reply off Kaku...that was along with the replies from Odenwald and Begalman...Whether you believe or not is of no great concern, as you are rather infatuated with me, again, as others have noted.

My advice to you is to come down to earth....
I'm a down to earth, fairly rough and ready bloke that is reluctant to put up with the grandeur you seem to want to heap on yourself.
You obviously are a layman like myself, the difference being I recognise that fact.
Discourse?? You know where my replies and comments are inclined to be in general, the rest is up to you.

I have now twice tried to repair the childish banter and conduct between us, only to have it thrown back in my face twice, with your as usual sanctimonious passive aggressive tactics.
If this continues, I can see us both being banned again.
Is that what you are striving for?
 
If you are referring to my E-Mails, I have also E-Mailed Hawking, Kaku and Thorne, but only receiving a reply off Kaku...that was along with the replies from Odenwald and Begalman...



Those E-Mails were all sent around 10 years ago, on another forum, which is now defunct to settle a debate I was having and in which all parties did agree on.
 
“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.”

“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's 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.”

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.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...laims-that-time-is-not-the-4th-dimension.html

My take on it is that time is the primary reason that physics is mathematical--time is an abstract mathematical 'result' of measurement, such that a "time-distance" orders events. Since it is purely mathematical it has no physical, representable existence, except as a parameter.
 
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...laims-that-time-is-not-the-4th-dimension.html

My take on it is that time is the primary reason that physics is mathematical--time is an abstract mathematical 'result' of measurement, such that a "time-distance" orders events. Since it is purely mathematical it has no physical, representable existence, except as a parameter.

They in my opinion are going the right way about it. Very interesting. I am working on a model of my own involving idea's of change.
 
Origin has summed it up beautifully.....space and time, space/time exist independent of anyone or anything. To claim otherwise is just a gutless copo

The hippocampus, which is connected to the read/write aspect into human cerebral memory, contains time keeper and place keeper cells. These two types of cells act standards for time and position. The hippocampus adds these tags to memory to show the relationships of change in time and space. These tags existed way before science, since they are a part of the DNA. These could well be the source of what we call space-time via a process called projection.

Projection begins inside the mind, and is connected to things that are not fully conscious, but which can become conscious. Since it is easier for most people to see things as stemming outside from the environment, the projection is like a movie within imagination that will overlap reality. The sensory input has this overlay. The Roshak Test, where you look at ink blots and explain what you see, is based on the projection effect. What is inside the person will be seen within the blots, via an overlay onto sensory input. Each person will see the exact same ink blot as data input into the eyes, but the projection will create a variety of interpretations. If we substitute inkblots for the abstractions of time and space, we can make use of projection.

There is no law in science that requires we calibrate the mind to separate all possible sources of time and space hippocampus projection. Show me any law that factors this out so the quote above would logically follow.

Let us look logical at space for example. Space, by definition is that nothing between substance. How can you see nothing without a projection to give it something to be seen? The space between earth and the moon has some rarefied matter and energy within it. If we remove that we have empty space. How do you see empty space, except in the terms of its container, which in this case os defined by the placer cell tags of the mind.

Picture a high tech aircraft windshield with built in grids os we can see the relationship of objects. At first one can see the distinction between the windshield grid and other objects in empty space. But as the mind more efficient these two will merge.
 
The hippocampus, which is connected to the read/write aspect into human cerebral memory, contains time keeper and place keeper cells. These two types of cells act standards for time and position. The hippocampus adds these tags to memory to show the relationships of change in time and space. These tags existed way before science, since they are a part of the DNA. These could well be the source of what we call space-time via a process called projection.

Projection begins inside the mind, and is connected to things that are not fully conscious, but which can become conscious. Since it is easier for most people to see things as stemming outside from the environment, the projection is like a movie within imagination that will overlap reality. The sensory input has this overlay. The Roshak Test, where you look at ink blots and explain what you see, is based on the projection effect. What is inside the person will be seen within the blots, via an overlay onto sensory input. Each person will see the exact same ink blot as data input into the eyes, but the projection will create a variety of interpretations. If we substitute inkblots for the abstractions of time and space, we can make use of projection.

There is no law in science that requires we calibrate the mind to separate all possible sources of time and space hippocampus projection. Show me any law that factors this out so the quote above would logically follow.

Let us look logical at space for example. Space, by definition is that nothing between substance. How can you see nothing without a projection to give it something to be seen? The space between earth and the moon has some rarefied matter and energy within it. If we remove that we have empty space. How do you see empty space, except in the terms of its container, which in this case os defined by the placer cell tags of the mind.

Picture a high tech aircraft windshield with built in grids os we can see the relationship of objects. At first one can see the distinction between the windshield grid and other objects in empty space. But as the mind more efficient these two will merge.

And your point is...?
 
The point is, projection, if one is not aware, will create a sense of realty, that may not be there. Like the Roshak test not everyone will see the same projection of space and time. However, if we coached a group of people, before the Rochak test so they know the most socially acceptable answers, most people will not depart from the script even if they see something else. My main point is knowing this, it is useful to be more open minded and not as dogmatic.
 
Let us look logical at space for example. Space, by definition is that nothing between substance. How can you see nothing without a projection to give it something to be seen? The space between earth and the moon has some rarefied matter and energy within it. If we remove that we have empty space. How do you see empty space, except in the terms of its container, which in this case os defined by the placer cell tags of the mind.
.

Yes, let's look at empty space, or a vacuum of space if you will.
We have possibly a CC, something called DE, we have the observationaly verified Casimir effect, and also ZPE'

The problem with some is that they see physical reality in whatever can be touched, smelt or seen.
Everything else is some sort of abstraction.
That's 19th century thinking, and today we do know the reality of these things, and have even measured the geometry of space/time that alters in the presence of mass/energy. [GP-B]

Once again, it's worth noting that the difference in opinions from those that see no reality is rather varied, from the pseudoscience of MD, through to at best a debatable scenario put by one other.

I see no support for denying space or time, other then philosophical meta physical type musings.
 
Yes, let's look at empty space, or a vacuum of space if you will.
We have possibly a CC, something called DE, we have the observationaly verified Casimir effect, and also ZPE'

The problem with some is that they see physical reality in whatever can be touched, smelt or seen.
Everything else is some sort of abstraction.
That's 19th century thinking, and today we do know the reality of these things, and have even measured the geometry of space/time that alters in the presence of mass/energy. [GP-B]

Once again, it's worth noting that the difference in opinions from those that see no reality is rather varied, from the pseudoscience of MD, through to at best a debatable scenario put by one other.

I see no support for denying space or time, other then philosophical meta physical type musings.

Space is real , it gives room for things to become or manifest

For time to actually exist , other than being a mathematical measurement of change in the macro and micro objects and also the interaction(s) of both , together or within themselves

As you keep insisting on

Then describe how time has the efficacy to do so

Show how time devoid of energy and/or matter has efficacy

So far you have avoided this proof or example , of how time does this

We await your proof or example , at least I do
 
We await your proof or example , at least I do

Rivers, as is the method of other anti main streamers around here, the asking of "proof" is no more then a cop out and shows a lack of knowledge of the scientific method.....
And of course you are one who is expert at this.
Now I have a question for you.
Please show me proof that time does not exist.
 
Rivers, as is the method of other anti main streamers around here, the asking of "proof" is no more then a cop out and shows a lack of knowledge of the scientific method.....
And of course you are one who is expert at this.
Now I have a question for you.
Please show me proof that time does not exist.

Soooo...thats the best you can do , thats it

No proof , no example of times efficacy , at all

Just..empty of anything related to my question
 
"


I'm sure I have put most of the following points before, here and in other threads, but this seems to sum up fairly well what time and its reality is all about.



""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://physics.about.com/od/timetravel/f/doestimeexist.htm
Question: Does Time Really Exist?
Sometimes people talk about how Einstein proved that everything is relative. In the bestselling book The Secret, it says "Time is just an illusion." Is this really true? Is time just a figment of our imagination?
Answer: Time is certainly a very complex topic in physics, but there is no real doubt among physicists that time does really, truly exist ... they're just divided a bit on what causes this existence.


The Arrow of Time and Entropy

The phrase "the arrow of time" was coined in 1927 by Sir Arthur Eddington and popularized in his 1928 book The Nature of the Physical World. Basically, the arrow of time is the idea that time flows in only one direction, as opposed to dimensions of space which have no preferred orientation. Eddington makes three specific points in regards to the arrow of time:
It is vividly recognized by consciousness.
It is equally insisted on by our reasoning faculty, which tells us that a reversal of the arrow would render the external world nonsensical.
It makes no appearance in physical science except in the study of organisation of a number of individuals. Here the arrow indicates the direction of progressive increase of the random element.


The first two points are certainly interesting, but it's the third point that captures the physics of time's arrow. The distinguishing factor of the arrow of time is that it points in the direction of increasing entropy, per the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Things in our universe decay as a course of natural, time-based processes ... but they do not spontaneously regain order without a lot of work.
There's a deeper level to what Eddington says in point three, however, and that is that "It makes no appearance in physical science except..." What does that mean? Time is all over the place in physics!

While this is certainly true, the curious thing is that the laws of physics are "time reversible" ... which is to say that the laws themselves look as if they would work perfectly well if the universe were played in reverse. From a physics standpoint, there's no real reason why the arrow of time should by necessity be moving forward.


The most common explanation is that in the very distant past, the universe had a high degree of order (or low entropy). Because of this "boundary condition," the natural laws are such that the entropy is continuously increasing. (This is the basic argument put forth in Sean Carroll's 2010 book From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time, though he goes further to suggest possible explanations for why the universe may have started off with so much order.)


The Secret and Time

One common misconception spread by an unclear discussion of the nature of relativity and other physics related to time is that time does not, in fact, exist at all. This comes across in a number of areas that are commonly classified as pseudoscience or even mysticism, but I'd like to address one particular appearance in this article.
In the best-selling self-help book (and video) The Secret, the authors put forth the notion that physicists have proven that time does not exist. Consider a few of the following lines from section "How Long Does It Take?" in the chapter "How to Use the Secret" from the book:

"Time is just an illusion. Einstein told us that."
"What quantum physicists and Einstein tell us is that everything is happening simultaneously."


"There is no time for the Universe and there is no size for the Universe."

All three of the statements above are categorically false, according to most physicists (especially Einstein!). Time is actually an integral part of the universe. As mentioned earlier, the very linear concept of time is tied into the concept of the Second Law of Thermodynamics ... which is seen by many physicists as one of the most important laws in all of physics! Without time as a real property of the universe, the Second Law becomes meaningless.
What is true is that Einstein proved, through his theory of relativity, that time by itself was not an absolute quantity. Rather, time and space are united in a very precise way to form spacetime, and this spacetime is an absolute measure that can be used - again, in a very precise, mathematical way - to determine how different physical processes in different locations interact with each other.

This does not mean that everything is happening simultaneously, however. In fact, Einstein firmly believed - based on the evidence of his equations (such as E = mc2) - that no information can travel faster than the speed of light. Every point in spacetime is limited in the way it can communicate with other regions of spacetime. The idea that everything happens simultaneously is exactly counter to the results that Einstein developed.

This and other physics errors in The Secret are perfectly understandable, because the fact is these are very complex topics, and they are not necessarily completely understood by physicists. However, just because physicists don't necessarily have a complete understanding of a concept such as time does not mean that it's valid to say they have no understanding of time, or that they've written off the whole concept as unreal. They most assuredly have not.

Transforming Time

Another complication in the understanding of time is demonstrated by Lee Smolin's 2013 book Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe, in which he argues that science does (as the mystics claim) treat time as an illusion. Instead, he thinks that we should treat time as a fundamentally real quantity and, if we take it seriously as such, we will uncover laws of physics that evolve over time. It remains to be seen if this appeal will actually result in new insights into the foundations of physics.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
 
Soooo...thats the best you can do , thats it

No proof , no example of times efficacy , at all

Just..empty of anything related to my question


Please show me proof that time does not exist.
Or are you just doing what you do best...trolling.
 
Transforming Time

Another complication in the understanding of time is demonstrated by Lee Smolin's 2013 book Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe, in which he argues that science does (as the mystics claim) treat time as an illusion. Instead, he thinks that we should treat time as a fundamentally real quantity and, if we take it seriously as such, we will uncover laws of physics that evolve over time. It remains to be seen if this appeal will actually result in new insights into the foundations of physics.

Pad

This has NOTHING to do with the efficacy of time

Do you know what efficacy means ?
 
Back
Top