Time itself has a biased flow direction.

[Billy T]

... The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves. ... We can diffract an electron. Not because of magic, but because of the wave nature of matter.....

Just an interesting historical note, I´m almost sure of: Bohr used the wave length of the electron and the reasonable assumption that as it went around the proton of hydrogen it had to come full circle and be in phase with itself (not anti phase and cancel itself out) to compute the energy levels of atomic hydrogen - Why it is sometimes still called the "Bohr atom."

 

[Billy T]

... Why does change happen sequentially, bit by bit, and not all at once?

Atomic theory provides an answer in most cases, if not all.
For example, when something burns (oxidizes) O2 molecules must become O + O and react with say carbon atoms to first form CO which if there are enough Os around becomes CO2. When viewed on this scale, typically there are several sequential steps required and waits for the needed atoms to be available. In many cases, not just available but with more than the "activation energy."

A glass dropped on the floor is more complex but basically the same story, but in this case vibrational waves of adequate energy (not arriving atoms) are needed to break the atomic bonds of the solid and these waves have a finite speed of propagation in the glass (from the point of first contact with the floor).

 

[RJBeery]

On an internet forum like this, where we don't know each other personally, who you are to other posters is what you say.

But logic should stand on its own regardless of the source. BTW, in my personal experience you're one of the worst offenders Przyk. More than once I'm debating you after it's been established that you and I agree on the subject at hand. I don't mind debating for the sake of mental sparring but I do get a chuckle out of that tendency of yours.

 

[phyti]

... But even if you do that, you're still left with an equation stating that certain positions of one planet are "associated" with different positions of another planet, which is essentially expressing an underlying concept of simultaneity, or distinct "time frames", or whatever you might want to call it.

It would seem to be gravity determining their postions, not time.

 

[phyti]

I sadly note you still have not one property of time to tell me.

Ask him why you need memory to experience time.

 

[RJBeery]

Ask him why you need memory to experience time.

This is the heart of it. Memories are a local order arising from a larger process of universal disordering. Time "flow" is an illusion.

 

[phyti]

A glass dropped on the floor is more complex but basically the same story, but in this case vibrational waves of adequate energy (not arriving atoms) are needed to break the atomic bonds of the solid and these waves have a finite speed of propagation in the glass (from the point of first contact with the floor).

You missed the part about entropy Billy. Thousands of years from now, the earth will be covered with a thick layer of broken glass, because there won't be enough available energy to run a recycling plant.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

This is the heart of it. Memories are a local order arising from a larger process of universal disordering. Time "flow" is an illusion.

@RJ
What is wrong with saying that memories are changes in the brain
which mirror the changes experienced by the individual consciousness.

If you disagree, could you explain at length?

 

[RJBeery]

@RJ
What is wrong with saying that memories are changes in the brain
which mirror the changes experienced by the individual consciousness.

If you disagree, could you explain at length?

Because we cannot prove this. The only thing we can do is say "my brain currently has a configuration which makes me believe such-and-such-and-such-and-such occurred". It doesn't mean anything occurred as we remember it or that anything actually occurred at all. The point though is that entropy is what makes memories possible, and THIS is the reason we cannot see into the future.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Because we cannot prove this. The only thing we can do is say "my brain currently has a configuration which makes me believe such-and-such-and-such-and-such occurred". It doesn't mean anything occurred as we remember it or that anything actually occurred at all. The point though is that entropy is what makes memories possible, and THIS is the reason we cannot see into the future.

@RJ
I respect your opinion.
In most debates, I would agree with you.

Could you go back and read all the posts on this thread.
It has altered my views and may do so with you also.

 

[OnlyMe]

What that is effectively saying is that if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it does it make a noise? Time marches on, whether there is an object in space or not.

Change continues in the abscence of an observer, but time is inherently an observation of the rate of change, compared to a standard we refer to as a clock. No observer. No observation.

Time is always a subjective or relative observation.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Change continues in the abscence of an observer, but time is inherently an observation of the rate of change, compared to a standard we refer to as a clock. No observer. No observation.

Time is always a subjective or relative observation.

Are you saying that although we hold to be true that the universe has been around for 13.7 billion years, that 13.7 billion years is not an absolute time?

 

[OnlyMe]

Are you saying that although we hold to be true that the universe has been around for 13.7 billion years, that 13.7 billion years is not an absolute time?

Our judgement that the universe has been around for any period of time, is a measurement and judgement made after the fact and based on assumptions which appear to be true now. In the case of the age of the universe primarily two assumptions. The universal constancy of the velocity of light and our interpretation of an observed redshift in the wavelengths of visible light.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Our judgement that the universe has been around for any period of time, is a measurement and judgement made after the fact and based on assumptions which appear to be true now. In the case of the age of the universe primarily two assumptions. The universal constancy of the velocity of light and our interpretation of an observed redshift in the wavelengths of visible light.

All measures of time are "after the fact." You can not measure 3 seconds unless that 3 seconds has elapsed. All your measurements of motion are of the PAST, as you don't complete the measurement until it is done and in the past.

 

[OnlyMe]

All measures of time are "after the fact." You can not measure 3 seconds unless that 3 seconds has elapsed. All your measurements of motion are of the PAST, as you don't complete the measurement until it is done and in the past.

That is a bad arguement. You know what I meant. In the case of timing things now, we can begin and end the measurement with a clock. There was no one standing around with a clock in hand 13.7 billion years in the past.

 

[Motor Daddy]

That is a bad arguement. You know what I meant. In the case of timing things now, we can begin and end the measurement with a clock. There was no one standing around with a clock in hand 13.7 billion years in the past.

So there was no start of a clock and yet there is 13.7 billion years that elapsed?

 

[RJBeery]

@RJ
I respect your opinion.
In most debates, I would agree with you.

Could you go back and read all the posts on this thread.
It has altered my views and may do so with you also.

Yes I'll do that. I do admit that I posted without reading the thread...

 

[OnlyMe]

So there was no start of a clock and yet there is 13.7 billion years that elapsed?

What exactly do you not understand in the following..?

Our judgement that the universe has been around for any period of time, is a measurement and judgement made after the fact and based on assumptions which appear to be true now. In the case of the age of the universe primarily two assumptions. The universal constancy of the velocity of light and our interpretation of an observed redshift in the wavelengths of visible light.

Since there is no observer to time the existence of the universe from its origins, we estimate the origin based on current experience, assumptions and theory.

You want to add even more complexity?

WITHOUT MAKING ANY STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT IS REAL!

We assume that locally defined experience and experiment, which demonstrates that the velocity of light is locally constant, for all inertial observers.., that it (the velocity of light) is also cosmologically constant or universally constant over cosmological scales. That assumption gives a locally defined meaning to a "light year", both for time and distance, those 13.7 billion LYs can be associated with both times and distances of clocks and rulers we hold in our hands.

If, on the other hand, for any reason extending that locally defined constant velocity of light, to non-locally defined cosmological scales, is inaccurate, i.e. the velocity of light varies over cosmological scales, defining the age and size of the observable universe, in light years, would still be an accurate cosmological definition, while it would no longer have any locally defined meaning.

 

[Billy T]

Yes I'll do that. I do admit that I posted without reading the thread...

I though you had. You made many posts including 4, 21 and 45, which commented on my post 44 proof that time is just a convenient parameter in most conventionally written equation concerning the dynamics of objects.

 

[RJBeery]

I though you had. You made many posts including 4, 21 and 45, which commented on my post 44 proof that time is just a convenient parameter in most conventionally written equation concerning the dynamics of objects.

Yes, of course but we're now past 100 comments and I just jumped back into the discussion spontaneously. I thought perhaps Capt Kremmen was referring to something profound that I hadn't read...