Good luck on that one, There is no such thing as disorder in systems . Randomness don't exist in my book. There is only perception of disorder when it is not going like we think it should. Clock work universe and I am sticking to it. The discourse of the Skylark is music to my ears
What is time??
- Thread starter Shadow1
- Start date
Good luck on that one, There is no such thing as disorder in systems . Randomness don't exist in my book. There is only perception of disorder when it is not going like we think it should. Clock work universe and I am sticking to it. The discourse of the Skylark is music to my ears
I don't understand the Skylark reference, but my view neither grants "true randomness" to anything nor does it preclude a clockwork universe. Just the opposite on both points in fact. I believe in "block time", where the universe already exists in a single determistic state. Since time "doesn't exist" from this view, it is the connection between entropy and information which provides the perception of it. Entropy isn't really about objective disorder, but rather the lack of information, which is subjective.Me-Ki-Gal said:
Einstein's block universe 'externally' is as dimensional units of distance^4, whereas internally it's experienced as time-distance^3:
d^4 = c (d/t) * t-d^3
'c' is the dimensional equivalent relationship ratio of the block and spacetime, reducing to the distance over time dimensional ratio:
d/t (c) = d^4 / t-d^3
Since there can be only one such dimensional ration, the speed of light can be no other than it is. It is also likely that the universe could be no other way than it is either. This gets down to the reason for the conservation laws. Determinism follows from all this.
d^4 = c (d/t) * t-d^3
'c' is the dimensional equivalent relationship ratio of the block and spacetime, reducing to the distance over time dimensional ratio:
d/t (c) = d^4 / t-d^3
Since there can be only one such dimensional ration, the speed of light can be no other than it is. It is also likely that the universe could be no other way than it is either. This gets down to the reason for the conservation laws. Determinism follows from all this.
what if time, is what was keeping the univerce all together before the bigbang, i mean, all in one, mass or something, since time and everything was already one, and, how big can that mass be? it can be even infinitly small, and infinitly dense, what if the time at that point, was, not a one line, but rather, past future present all in one nothing different, like if time don't even exist, everything happen at the same moment, and also everything happens in future or past considering that mass or whatever, but, if that were a mass, what's around it? i mean, if the bigbang, before that, the univerce was a hall mass, what surrounded that big mass or whatever? and if we think that the bigbang is how we think it is, how can the maters and the enegy and etc... spread, in the nothing, means, spread, in, a space, that don't even exist, or, when the bigbang, did the bigbang produced the space first and after it the spread of mater and the energies and etc... and, if that mass was not surrounded by anything, means, it have it's borders, means nothing around it, none none, nothing, 0, absolutly nothing, not even empty space, so how can it expend on, none, but, since there is none, nothing, absolutly nothing, then it would expand, and so on, but, how can it expand like that and so one, while it's only a condensed matters and energies and time and all, to where will everything spread? exept if the bigabang, also created the empty space first, or somehow, wich the so called empty space don't exist anyway, because there's the dark energy, the dark matter, and so on that we don't know...what if there was, something surrounding it, but, if there was, how was it stable their, if it was already surrounded, then, the time and all, weren't originated from the bigbang and that mass, i mean, there must were other forces holding that or something, or also, what if there was more than one bigbang in different, masses? and, those masses, if time is already mixed with them and gravity and all, it can even be infinitly small, and infinitly dense, what if there was another univerce, holding all those masses, but did that start anyway, what was their before the bigbang, since everything have been existed after the bigbang, how could all that spreaded and etc..., spread on, nothing, none, extremely nothing, and that none is like borders, but, what's beyond the space and the univerce and the other univerces?
An illusion.
.
if you mean, time, as the normal meaning, yes it is an illusion, but, the real force, or whatever, that represent time, is far more complicated, and related to everything, like the speed;, gravity, etc..
if you mean, time, as the normal meaning, yes it is an illusion, but, the real force, or whatever, that represent time, is far more complicated, and related to everything, like the speed;, gravity, etc..
Time equals motion.
Time is a function of velocity, so I suppose "time is motion" is kind of true. But what about "heat is motion"?
It's interesting to try to show that time isn't a function of velocity, that time somehow "exists" independently in say, some region(s) of the universe where everything has zero velocity.
It's interesting to try to show that time isn't a function of velocity, that time somehow "exists" independently in say, some region(s) of the universe where everything has zero velocity.
what if time, is what was keeping the univerce all together before the bigbang, i mean, all in one, mass or something, since time and everything was already one, and, how big can that mass be? it can be even infinitly small, and infinitly dense, what if the time at that point, was, not a one line, but rather, past future present all in one nothing different, like if time don't even exist, everything happen at the same moment, and also everything happens in future or past considering that mass or whatever, but, if that were a mass, what's around it? i mean, if the bigbang, before that, the univerce was a hall mass, what surrounded that big mass or whatever? and if we think that the bigbang is how we think it is, how can the maters and the enegy and etc... spread, in the nothing, means, spread, in, a space, that don't even exist, or, when the bigbang, did the bigbang produced the space first and after it the spread of mater and the energies and etc... and, if that mass was not surrounded by anything, means, it have it's borders, means nothing around it, none none, nothing, 0, absolutly nothing, not even empty space, so how can it expend on, none, but, since there is none, nothing, absolutly nothing, then it would expand, and so on, but, how can it expand like that and so one, while it's only a condensed matters and energies and time and all, to where will everything spread? exept if the bigabang, also created the empty space first, or somehow, wich the so called empty space don't exist anyway, because there's the dark energy, the dark matter, and so on that we don't know...what if there was, something surrounding it, but, if there was, how was it stable their, if it was already surrounded, then, the time and all, weren't originated from the bigbang and that mass, i mean, there must were other forces holding that or something, or also, what if there was more than one bigbang in different, masses? and, those masses, if time is already mixed with them and gravity and all, it can even be infinitly small, and infinitly dense, what if there was another univerce, holding all those masses, but did that start anyway, what was their before the bigbang, since everything have been existed after the bigbang, how could all that spreaded and etc..., spread on, nothing, none, extremely nothing, and that none is like borders, but, what's beyond the space and the univerce and the other univerces?
Wall of text successfully evaded!
In order to travel a certain distance time must elapse.
In order for time to elapse a certain distance must be traveled.
I'm not sure the same is true of heat. Heat can be linked to time but heat can be controlled even though the universe exist as heat as well it's not it's equivalence in the continuum. Is it?
You were shown in this thread that that is not necessarily true.
Oli had a problem with my use of the time distance rate of speed of comparison but the premise appears to be sound even if he doesn't like the implication of the use of that equation.
We know the universe is in motion
We know that mass has a direct effect on time.
When the Big Crunch was entertained as the eventual end of the universe it was theorized that Gravity and Time would cease be cause of a state of freefall.
We know the universe is in motion
We know that mass has a direct effect on time.
When the Big Crunch was entertained as the eventual end of the universe it was theorized that Gravity and Time would cease be cause of a state of freefall.
Well, we know that objects in the universe "have" motion, but we don't know that the universe itself does--unless you mean expansion is "motion".Saquist said:
The slowing of time is also a function of changes in velocity, where the velocity change is due to gravitational mass--so it's an extrinsic function (of the velocity of objects).
Or in other words, gravity affects the velocities of objects that "have" intrinsic motion, so it also affects f(v).
Indeed. I mean the expansion is motion.
That's realities though.
But it' same concept I'm considering.
Shadow,
Here's a link that might be of use...
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteins-special-relativity.html
And another...
http://www.timephysics.com/
Sometimes it's easier to just point at a source than try to explain it. I hope this helps.
Here's a link that might be of use...
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteins-special-relativity.html
And another...
http://www.timephysics.com/
Sometimes it's easier to just point at a source than try to explain it. I hope this helps.
Because you were (and still appear to be) totally incorrect on the application.
The premise is far from sound.
If you accept the E=MC2 equation, then:
Time is a measure of the proportionate difference between how far a given amount of energy will move something, compared with how far that thing would move at the speed of light.
It's a measurement of the amount of energy needed to overcome inertia, which increases as you get closer to the speed of light..
Inertia:
inertia n. Physics . The tendency of a body to resist acceleration; the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in straight line.
It is a mathematical relationship between matter, energy and the speed of light.
Later note.
What about massless particles?
How do they fit into Einstein's equation?
They still take time to travel. Why?
From Wiki
In empty space, the photon moves at c (the speed of light) and its energy and momentum are related by E = pc, where p is the magnitude of the momentum vector p. This derives from the following relativistic relation, with m = 0:[13]
Why would the speed of a photon be slower in non empty space?
What force can act on a particle without mass?
Time is a measure of the proportionate difference between how far a given amount of energy will move something, compared with how far that thing would move at the speed of light.
It's a measurement of the amount of energy needed to overcome inertia, which increases as you get closer to the speed of light..
Inertia:
inertia n. Physics . The tendency of a body to resist acceleration; the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in straight line.
It is a mathematical relationship between matter, energy and the speed of light.
Later note.
What about massless particles?
How do they fit into Einstein's equation?
They still take time to travel. Why?
From Wiki
In empty space, the photon moves at c (the speed of light) and its energy and momentum are related by E = pc, where p is the magnitude of the momentum vector p. This derives from the following relativistic relation, with m = 0:[13]
Why would the speed of a photon be slower in non empty space?
What force can act on a particle without mass?
Last edited: