I've read his work, he has a poor understanding of it. And I am not even a physicist.
The Relativity of Time
- Thread starter Nightshift
- Start date
I've read his work, he has a poor understanding of it. And I am not even a physicist.
Though he has made excellent points against parallel universe theory which has to be noted.
Let me quote something he once said
''All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. Anything that is true is true of the present moment. Not only is time real, but everything that is real is situated in time. Nothing exists timelessly.''
Sounds very logical doesn't it? Believe it or not, but he thinks he is looking at this correctly, but he's still mixing old Newtonian concepts with time, there are no succession of moments, if there was, that would imply a true chronology. There is no such chronology in relativity.
''All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. Anything that is true is true of the present moment. Not only is time real, but everything that is real is situated in time. Nothing exists timelessly.''
Sounds very logical doesn't it? Believe it or not, but he thinks he is looking at this correctly, but he's still mixing old Newtonian concepts with time, there are no succession of moments, if there was, that would imply a true chronology. There is no such chronology in relativity.
Obviously
So pad
We await your evidence on the efficacy of time
Sooner rather than later
And I await your proof that time does not exist......
So you have no answer to my question , not surprised
Also rivers, I do realize the trolling potential that you have, and am not really going to be sucked into your never ending style of inane irrelevant questions, suffice to say, if you have an argument for the non existence of time then present it.
Please though leave out all the metaphysical, philosophical musings and stick to the tried and true observational and experimental data that aligns with accepted scientific methodology...Occam's razor should be applied.
That would be nice...sooner then later.
Please though leave out all the metaphysical, philosophical musings and stick to the tried and true observational and experimental data that aligns with accepted scientific methodology...Occam's razor should be applied.
That would be nice...sooner then later.
Obviously
I love it.
I want you all to stop trolling the thread... in fact... I'll get a mod to close it. This has turned into a circus.
Won't happen
My view of time is NOT philosophical
It is about what time REALLY is , and that is a measurement of movement or change by object(s) in the micro and macro , which is physically based
Now again , show that time has efficacy
Of course it won't happen
Time is simply that which stops everything from happening together.....Without time we wouldn't be here, nor would the Universe.
Or to quote an old friend of mine.......
"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."
Sten Odenwald:
The debate in this thread is going back and forth between philosophy and theoretical science, between what is real as a function of communication, awareness and consciousness and what is real as in physically exists apart from awareness... Obviously a tree falls in the forest even if it is not observed or the sound it makes in the process is not heard. Likewise change occurs in the world with or without our notice, and when we do notice it we communicate its progress, through the abstract concept of time.
Lee Smolin's position is accurate from the perspective of a theorist, whether time has any "physical" like reality or whether it is an abstract way of communicating an awareness or observation of change. Time is as real as is our conscious awareness of the change that occurs in the world around us and it is a necessary variable in most if not all practical and theoretical approaches to explaining the world around us.
The nature and reality of time will remain a topic hotly discussed, as it has been since we, human beings first gave it a name, in our thoughts and in our language.
Tell me is your name real? Most of us would answer yes, even knowing it is not something you could ever reach out and touch. Time is for "us" likewise real. As real as any name can be... no matter how many ways we find to define it.
I just want to say, that was beautifully put.
I did not say time stops.
I said if there was no time, there would be no Universe.
No gravity is because of space...and time.
The BB was an evolution of space and time [with some inherent energy superforce, DE, CC]
gravity, matter came later.
If one of any of those concepts/reality, did not exist, neither would any of the others.
Space and gravity are probably much more fundamentally related than the presence of matter itself.
Gravity has been shown to be a fundamental statistical prediction based on thermodynamic and entropic laws. This means gravity is something more fundamental than matter itself, it has to do with the field of probability itself.
Of course whether the tree falls and makes a sound is true , whether there is an observer or not
The thing is we tend to think that if there is no Human to observe the action , then the action has no physical properties
Which is completely and utterly wrong
Practical only
But shouldn't be
This is what I'm trying to define
The practical time , exp. Time zones of the planet
As opposed to time have a real effect on physical things , which time can't do
Time for me is definable
That's correct, time does not have a real effect on physical things, only interactions do.
And what are interactions... that is defined by change. We further define change through time. Time, the ordered process due to a linear flow of time. Rather events occur because of causally related dynamics are related to entropic forces originating presumably at the BB. That's the best way to look at it, because our tool to measure time vanishes as you approach Planck Scales.
"The nature and reality of time will remain a topic hotly discussed, as it has been since we, human beings first gave it a name, in our thoughts and in our language"
I will concede the above thoughts....
This is a debatable subject. No complete certainty either way, and I have said that way back in this thread or a similar thread.
All I know is that from my position as a layman, and invoking Occam's razor, time is what separates events.
If we had no time, or space, or gravity, or energy, we would have nothing.
I will concede the above thoughts....
This is a debatable subject. No complete certainty either way, and I have said that way back in this thread or a similar thread.
All I know is that from my position as a layman, and invoking Occam's razor, time is what separates events.
If we had no time, or space, or gravity, or energy, we would have nothing.