No munty, your thought experiment is about mental perceptions of time. It says nothing about measuring time or speed.
How do you make the leap from the way a person perceives time to the way a clock measures time?
Was Einstein Wrong?
- Thread starter munty13
- Start date
How do you make the leap from the way a person perceives time to the way a clock measures time?
I'm not saying I know more than everyone else. I think there is a real possiblity that there is something that we have all over-looked. Don't you think it would be fun to find out if this is true?
Imagine yourself atomically small. Imagine the distance between neurons shrinking, and what impact this might have upon the speed of your thoughts. Now imagine yourself planet big. Look at the distance growing between neurons, and try to think what kind of impact this might have upon the speed of your thoughts. With a little practise, you eventually get used to the idea that there is a gaping chasm between the two experiences.
And anyhoo, I think it was Einstein himself who said that "imagination is more important than knowledge".
"Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as
the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature 0 K(absolute zero). The ground state is defined at zero magnetic field. The second thus defined is equivalent to the ephemeris second, which was based on astronomical measurements.
How does it all work? Cesium is evaporated at the cesium source to form a beam of well-separated cesium atoms that travel without collisions at about 250 m/s, through a vacuum maintained by the vacuum pump.
Simple electronics counts the output cycles of the quartz oscillator, and issues a pulse every 10 million cycles - exactly 1 second apart."
The cesium atom is not travelling at 250 m/s though, it is my rate of perception which is implying that it's travelling at 250 m/s. If I was to observe this beam of cesium atoms, where my rate of perception was twice as fast as normal - the speed at which the atoms travel would appear to slow down to 125 m/s (with-in my experience of time). The output cycles of the quartz oscillator would slow down, and the pulse which is issued at every 10 million cycles, now appears to take twice as long - count it ..1...2.
It becomes more apparent that distance is nothing more than a product of time, and time a product of distance. The atomic clock appears to be nothing more than an overly dramatic way of measuring the distance travelled by neurons in the brain, and the speed with which those signals are processed.
I see no point in such useless efforts that are destined to fail before they even begin - there's certainly no fun in that.:shrug:
Imagination that ignores solid, proven facts is totally wasted brainpower because it cannot lead to anything real. That's something that you don't seem to comprehend.
You don't even come close to understanding perception! For example, there are actually two types of time: objective and subjective.
Objective time is what is indicated by an instrument designed to measure it's passing - like the atomic clock you just described (although I honestly doubt you even understand what you copied and pasted there).
Subjective time is entirely a matter of perception and has NOTHING to do with the real passage of time NOR does it affect it in any way.An example would be how 10 minutes waiting in a dentists chair can seem like an hour - while sitting 2 hours through a movie can seem like only several minutes.
There's no such thing as objective time. Time is, and has always been, subjective. Please give one example of where time is inherent to the Universe.
Time is an illusion. Without an observer, time does not exist. A clock on the wall reinforces the idea that time is real. A clock is dictating seconds and minutes to you. Outside the clock, seconds and minutes do not exist. Throw away the clock, and the Universe reveals itself as energy in motion.
We measure this motion, and we quantify it, and we build clocks based upon it - but all the while time is not inherent in the Universe. Time is a construct of the mind.
Oh right, so there was no time before sentient beings evolved. Oh, here's a question, how did life evolve, if evolution takes time, but has not yet evolved sentient beings?
Beautiful!
He's already painted himself into the 'stupid corner' and now you've slammed the door behind him - I love it!!!!I guess I can. OOPS! Too late.
I've seen many examples of your explosiveness in the 5 or 6 months I've posted here. You could POSSIBLY be different offline but I hope to never meet you.
I was OBVIOUSLY referring to your explosive reaction to the OP & the person who started this thread. Your 1st reply was directed much more at the person rather than the proposal & you were unreasonably upset & your subsequent posts continued the same.
I got your sad message months ago.
He's not explosive.
He just doesn't suffer fools gladly. This is allegedly a science forum. If people spout garbage, we are under no obligation to be sympathetic.
Nope, you don't understand and aren't even CLOSE to getting the message yet.
It's just as Philo says, I don't tolerate idiots, fools or nonsense for even a minute. It has nothing at all to do with anger or your so-called "explosive reaction" - it's a matter of truth and principle.
You still have a long way to go toward understanding life and the interactions of people.
Time is an illusion. Time is something we use to measure motion. Motion is also an illusion.
I'm thinking of something like a flick-book. You know, a book where the pages are flicked by the thumb, to create the illusion of motion. A very simple book would be the image of a ball bouncing up and down. Obviously, the ball is not really bouncing up and down. The act of observation has created the illusion that the ball is moving. We think the ball is moving. Really though, it's the pages that are moving. Our bouncing ball exists only in the book. A bouncing ball in a flick-book is an illusion, but, is this really any different to how we observe a ball bouncing in the playground?
The speed at which the thumb flicks through the book is dictating our rate of perception. It's really defining the speeds at which the brain processes the motion of the world. If I was to double my rate of perception, then the speed with which the pages flick from one to the next shall slow down. The ball in the book would appear to bounce more slowly. The ball in the playground would appear to bounce more slowly. Time does not slow down, but rather, the motion of the Universe slows down.
Because we view the speed of light in a vacuum as a constant, we've become hooked to the idea that our rate of perception is the only real speed to process reality. But smaller animals with smaller brains, could be viewing the motion of the world more slowly, due to a faster rate of perception. Of some note, insects and small animals, such as rodents, can see into the UV range. This ability to see higher frequencies could be due to a faster rate of perception. A larger animal, perhaps with a larger brain, would see the motion of the world move more rapidly , because of a slower rate of perception.
Well, if we have our thumb dictating the rate of perception, then which part of the Universe fulfils the role of the book? Why, the Universe itself. It's matter and EMR which distracts us in its motion. All matter and EMR is represented by the motion of the bouncing ball. All matter and EMR are illusory. The only thing which is real are the pages of the book. The most important aspect of the Universe is blind to us. We are too distracted by the bouncing ball. The aether supports the Universe, in the same way pages of a flick-book support the images of a bouncing ball. Nothing could, or would, exist without the aether.
The book though is meaningless without an observer. The same as the Universe is meaningless without an observer. The simple act of observation defines all meaning in the Universe.
http://www.flipbook.info/history.php
I'm thinking of something like a flick-book. You know, a book where the pages are flicked by the thumb, to create the illusion of motion. A very simple book would be the image of a ball bouncing up and down. Obviously, the ball is not really bouncing up and down. The act of observation has created the illusion that the ball is moving. We think the ball is moving. Really though, it's the pages that are moving. Our bouncing ball exists only in the book. A bouncing ball in a flick-book is an illusion, but, is this really any different to how we observe a ball bouncing in the playground?
The speed at which the thumb flicks through the book is dictating our rate of perception. It's really defining the speeds at which the brain processes the motion of the world. If I was to double my rate of perception, then the speed with which the pages flick from one to the next shall slow down. The ball in the book would appear to bounce more slowly. The ball in the playground would appear to bounce more slowly. Time does not slow down, but rather, the motion of the Universe slows down.
Because we view the speed of light in a vacuum as a constant, we've become hooked to the idea that our rate of perception is the only real speed to process reality. But smaller animals with smaller brains, could be viewing the motion of the world more slowly, due to a faster rate of perception. Of some note, insects and small animals, such as rodents, can see into the UV range. This ability to see higher frequencies could be due to a faster rate of perception. A larger animal, perhaps with a larger brain, would see the motion of the world move more rapidly , because of a slower rate of perception.
Well, if we have our thumb dictating the rate of perception, then which part of the Universe fulfils the role of the book? Why, the Universe itself. It's matter and EMR which distracts us in its motion. All matter and EMR is represented by the motion of the bouncing ball. All matter and EMR are illusory. The only thing which is real are the pages of the book. The most important aspect of the Universe is blind to us. We are too distracted by the bouncing ball. The aether supports the Universe, in the same way pages of a flick-book support the images of a bouncing ball. Nothing could, or would, exist without the aether.
The book though is meaningless without an observer. The same as the Universe is meaningless without an observer. The simple act of observation defines all meaning in the Universe.
http://www.flipbook.info/history.php
You just never know when a patent clerk is going to come up with a theory that revolutionizes physics or when bicycle mechanics conquer powered flight. There are good & practical ideas at high school science fairs that professionals never thought of.
For Christ's sake man, this is pseudoscience, the absolutely perfect spot for this kind of thinking. WTF is so appealing for a scientist here anyways?
Simply because there is science and there is bad science - and this stuff is worst of the bad. Yes, it's always good to question what has been 'established' - but one does not do so through the application of ignorance or of very faulty "experiments." The OP simply does NOT understand that what he proposes as an experiment is pure nonsense.
“
its not that evolution is based not on time as it is based on the processes of living things
and these processes vary from the butterfly to the Galapagos Tortoise
its not that evolution is based not on time as it is based on the processes of living things
and these processes vary from the butterfly to the Galapagos Tortoise
But isn't that understood and why certain threads get shunted to pseudoscience?
Exactly what is that supposed to mean?!?!?!? If nothing else, you've totally trapped yourself with circular reasoning - ANY process requires time to proceed.