Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
This is a non-mathematicians attempt so can be taken as an attempt at humour if nothing else . . .
Motion has the fundamental quality of @. This is a location quality and it defines the “now” Universal location (or any combination of relative locations) of a thing. In other words it’s where a thing is “at” (@) “now“. Motion is a things continuously changing @’s and the past history of @’s measures motion.
That aside I think this is all just a semantics debate.
Motion has the fundamental quality of @. This is a location quality and it defines the “now” Universal location (or any combination of relative locations) of a thing. In other words it’s where a thing is “at” (@) “now“. Motion is a things continuously changing @’s and the past history of @’s measures motion.
That aside I think this is all just a semantics debate.
Last edited:
Kwalish Kid
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2010
- Messages
- 509
So, this past history isn't time? And the record of motion isn't a series of locations in sapce?
Perhaps. But Farsight is trying to sell his book.
Time is not an actual thing that had the motion that was observed and recorded. The history is a record of the motion of some actual thing or things. Time is merely an abstract generic term we use to describe that history. A thing bounces, is bounce a thing? Motion is a series of contiguous locations and each location could be described as being Universal or relative locations. Define what you mean by “space”. Is it a thing or is it an empty nothingness?
We represent things and events abstractly by words and we give things and events descriptive names. That we use the word time to describe the motion of things doesn’t magically make the word any less abstract.
So what? Apparently Einstein was trying to win the Nobel Prize so he could buy a house for his ex (I think) wife.
Last edited:
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
The point is that there is no way to use motion as a fundamental concept and derive the known laws of physics. We need both time and space for that. Aristotle talked about motion and got nowhere; Galileo and Newton used Δx/Δt and ushered in the world of modern physics.
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Here's what: Einstein was right; Farsight is wrong.
Don’t take me too seriously, I’m an Amatheist. (I don’t accept that Einstein was right. Which isn’t saying he was wrong)
Last edited:
It's a hyperfine transition, a change of electron spin. The electron is electromagnetic. And the transition emits microwaves. We count those microwaves coming at us to define the second, so it has everything to do with the motion of light. Don't be so dismissive. Look to the evidence.
Yes, and you do both using the motion of light.
Oh yeah? So accurate that you know that the speed of light is constant, and it's 299,792,458 m/s? Remember what I said about optical clocks losing synchronisation at different elevations? You know that parallel-mirror light clocks will do the same. And I can show you an idealised picture like this:
So how much quantified time do we have here?
Because it's just a variant of Pythagoras' theorem applied to the motion of light. I've explained this already. I'll explain it again in case you missed it. The expression for a spacetime interval in flat Minkowski spacetime is this:
[latex]$ds^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2$[/latex]
It's related to Pythagoras' theorem, used in the Simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity. We've got two parallel-mirror light clocks, one in front of us, the other travelling out-and-back. We see the light moving like this ǁ in the local clock and like this /\ in the moving clock. Treat one side of the angled path as a right-angled triangle and the hypotenuse is the lightpath where c=1 in natural units, the base is the speed v as a fraction of c, and the height gives the Lorentz factor γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²). If the moving mirror is going at .99c the Lorentz factor is 1/√(1-0.99²/1²) = 1/√(1-0.98) = 1/√0.2 = 1/0.142 = 7. So there's a sevenfold time dilation. And get this: there's no literal time flowing in these clocks, just light moving back and forth between the mirrors. The invariant interval between the start and end events of our gedankenexperiment is because the two light-path lengths are the same. It's that simple. Macroscopic motion comes at the cost of a reduced local rate of motion. Hence the minus in front of the t. It's like Pythagoras' theorem a² = b² + c² because you work out the height of the triangle via b² = -c² + a².
No it doesn't because I said time exists like heat exists. And because the scientific evidence is on my side. And Einstein. See this. What it really boils down to is that guys like you believe in things for which there is no evidence and no logic. So much so that you will not look at the evidence and you will not test the logic that challenges that belief.
Jesus H Christ, it's like talking to somebody with their fingers in their ears. There's no t in the derivation of the Lorentz factor, v is a fraction of c, and the time dimension is a dimension of measure like I said in post #43. It is not a dimension like the space dimensions. It offers no freedom of movement.
See A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein. I'm with Einstein on this. As ever.
Not me mate. I'm battling woo like time travel and the multiverse and doing my bit for physics.
From what I understand about Einstein he actually considered the opposite to what (I think) Farsight is suggesting...
Einstein said, pretty much, that change did not actually happen... that past, present and future just ARE, and always will BE...you move from point to point "in time so to speak" just as you would in space...
Godel's solutions to the Einstein field equations were interesting but of little practical use once (un)matched to experimental data.
Also, being as you mention Godel, would you not consider that a basic acceptance of the principle of time (or space, or momentum or whatever) can be thought of as the "axioms" of physics...
and then by the incompleteness theorem.....
Shamelessly copied and pasted from Discover magazine:
"And finally, there is the philosophical point, the one at the heart of Gödel's concerns. Granted, rotating universes may be physically unrealistic. But they are possible, and once seen as possibilities, they cannot be unseen. Within these strange contraptions, time is an illusion. But if time is an illusion in some universes, then the features of time that we take for granted in this particular universe must be accidents of creation, a matter of how matter and its motions are arranged in the world. But a philosophical view leading to this conclusion, Gödel remarked dryly, "can hardly be considered satisfactory." Time is far too deep a concept to arise accidentally."
Einstein said, pretty much, that change did not actually happen... that past, present and future just ARE, and always will BE...you move from point to point "in time so to speak" just as you would in space...
Godel's solutions to the Einstein field equations were interesting but of little practical use once (un)matched to experimental data.
Also, being as you mention Godel, would you not consider that a basic acceptance of the principle of time (or space, or momentum or whatever) can be thought of as the "axioms" of physics...
and then by the incompleteness theorem.....
Shamelessly copied and pasted from Discover magazine:
"And finally, there is the philosophical point, the one at the heart of Gödel's concerns. Granted, rotating universes may be physically unrealistic. But they are possible, and once seen as possibilities, they cannot be unseen. Within these strange contraptions, time is an illusion. But if time is an illusion in some universes, then the features of time that we take for granted in this particular universe must be accidents of creation, a matter of how matter and its motions are arranged in the world. But a philosophical view leading to this conclusion, Gödel remarked dryly, "can hardly be considered satisfactory." Time is far too deep a concept to arise accidentally."
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Farsight's just repeating his errors, but this was amusing. On 5 April (with my highlighting):
Today, almost a month later, he changed the blue text above to the orange text below:
In both of those quotations, the highlighted number is incorrect.
Throughout this and other threads, Farsight has been denying the two fundamental principles of Einstein's general theory of relativity:
Today, almost a month later, he changed the blue text above to the orange text below:
In both of those quotations, the highlighted number is incorrect.
Throughout this and other threads, Farsight has been denying the two fundamental principles of Einstein's general theory of relativity:
- the equivalence principle
- the admissibility of all coordinate transformations allowed by differential geometry
Kwalish Kid
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2010
- Messages
- 509
The motion of light might be how we detect the transition, but there is nothing to say that the transition itself depends on the motion of light. Your claim is simply false on its face.
Regardless, even in what you describe, you are using assumptions about what counts as a shared amount of time, assumptions that come before the definition of the unit.
You explained one case. You haven't explained why we should expect all timed events to match the movement of light. You haven't explained why nuclear events, entirely divorced from photons, should follow this timing.
You are ignoring Einstein's assumption that, "Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body." This, or equivalent assumptions made in every workable system of physics, presupposes aspects of time. Velocity, for Einstein in this case, means a relationship between chosen spatial coordinates and a chosen time coordinate.
If you disagree, then show us how to mathematically model physics (i.e., do the work of physics) without this assumption.
Why do you produce such obvious lies? We can see exactly how the Lorentz factors are derived in your own posts and we can see the role that time obviously plays in them and their use.
Got a reference for that? Relativity is certainly associated with the "block universe" of Minkowski spacetime dating from 1908, but that's an all-times view. There's no motion in it, just static worldlines. The world-without-time stuff dates from much later, 1949.
The Yourgrau book complains that Godel is supposed to have demonstrated the possibility of CTCs and time travel, but actually he did the opposite, saying time cannot pass if you can visit the past.
Yes. There are some things that you can't actually explain, all you can say is show it, and say that's what happens because that's the way the world is. Note that I'm not complaining about the principle of time, and I'm not saying time does not exist. Just that it isn't something that's on an exact par with space or something you can travel through it. That's science fiction, not physics. And since I can see things moving but I can't see time flowing, I prefer to give priority to motion. It just seems so much more rational.
I don't think it's that deep myself. I kinda think along these lines these days: stuff moves, **** happens, that's it.
Beat it Clinger. I did a copy and paste sometime with some changes for brevity, and the 0.2 is just a typo. It should be 0.02, a fiftieth, which is what you get when you multiply a seventh times a seventh. I'm with Einstein, you have no argument to counter mine, and slinging mud ain't going to make up for it.
Michael C
Graduate Poster
Yes, I know. What does the "t" stand for in the dt2 term?
Speak for yourself.
Yes, it's fine to mention an term of an equation that doesn't happen to have "t" in it. So what? The Lorentz factor won't be much use for transforming between different space-time coordinates if we don't include the time coordinate. I'm still waiting for that mathematical model of reality where "motion" is a fundamental quantity and there is no time dimension.
It's not "freedom of movement" that tells us whether we can use a quantity as a dimension of a coordinate system. The only difference between a time dimension and a space one is that a time dimension has a set direction, while a space dimension does not. Time is defined to be one of the dimensions of the space-time manifold. If we can't treat time as a dimension of this manifold, we'll have to throw away a significant amount of modern physics.
if that is referring to Godels model of the universe using the Einstein field equations then it is not really relevent as that only applies to a particular universe which demonstrably does NOT have the "rotation" properties our one has.
It just is useful as a POSSIBLE solution to the field equations.
"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein
"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once." - Albert Einstein
http://www.alberteinsteinsite.com/quotes/einsteinquotes.html
Paraphrased and interpreted at:
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/mar/featgodel
Einstein's claim is more subtle. He suggests that change is an illusion. Things do not become, they have not been, and they will not be: They simply are. Time is like space;
