No, I never sugggested anything of the kind. I can tell you that the time it took to effect the change was approximately 2 minutes, but I do not have a unit to quantify the change itself: that's what I'm asking you to provide.
Whoa! Don't get sucked into theology. We just don't know how the universe began, and stuff like "somebody wound it up" is just a turtles all the way down non-answer because what they don't say is who wound up the winder. Sorry if I put up a link that took you down that road.
He gets into to very speculative stuff, and you should be sceptical. Celebrity physicists sometimes give turtles all the way down non-answers too. Aw, I'll spit it out: sometimes they peddle woo.
I don't think so. The path integral is there because waves are "extended entities". For example a seismic wave propagating from A to B isn't restricted to a straight line drawn between those two points. That line might mark out maximum intensity, but if you're a mile to the North of the line you still feel the ground vibrating.
MichaelC: it's the motion of light, or if you prefer, the motion of electromagnetic phenomena. The NIST clock, which is used to define the second, uses microwaves. These are emitted by the hyperfine transition, which is an electromagnetic spin-flip. Stretch an elastic band between your finger and thumb, and stick a short pencil through it, then swing the pencil over and let go. It's something like that. In the old days before relativity they used to use some other kind of motion. A year is how "long" it takes the Earth to move round the sun. A day is how long it takes the Earth to spin once. It always comes back to motion one way or another.
You're talking out of your hat. If you don't believe me, get up out of your chair, and hop back a metre. Easy peasy. Now hop back a second. Hey, what's the problem? Everything you're saying applies just as well to space as it does to time? No it doesn't. So please, spare us the hard to take your opinions seriously.solinvictus said:
Stop ignoring everything done in rigorous physics and the things that people actually post. In actual physics, people record the time that things happen. They assign coordinates to space and coordinates to time. Additionally, measuring the distance between objects also requires that we take motion into account just like measuring time, so any argument that there is no time because we have to measure motion equally applies to space.
Here's a quotation from that website, "This address has been frequently misunderstood as positing that a return of the ether theory." Farsight willfully ignores this claim, willfully avoids learning the actually theory of Einstein along with its mathematics, and almost always distorts physics. He likes this particular quotation from Einstein, but again he shows his complete ignorance of the theory: these "ten functions" that Einstein talks about are spacetime functions, functions over an amalgamation of space and time represented as a tensor, not functions over space with or without a separate time variable.
Some are claiming that time exists independently of motion and that motion is merely used to measure time.
No, this is not current cosmological thinking and it is important to be clear on this. Current cosmological thinking is that we can't describe the universe past a point about 13.75 or so billion years ago. There are a number of speculations, but they are not representative of a consensus scientific position.
So current cosmological thinking supports creation as in something from nothing? If so then I don't support current cosmological thinking.
It's not a matter of "meaning" (hardly "real scientific substance") it a matter of actual existence. Do they or don't they? Please explain what the meaning of the Universe is.
It's choc-a-block full of non-material stuff. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]From time to time there's also some material stuff like a couple of planets, a moon, asteroids, a Space Station, etc. There's also the possibilty of dark matter and anti-matter to consider. [/FONT]Space is empty like a room with no furniture or fittngs is empty. Do you think that there is absolutely nothing between the Earth and Sun? Wonder why we can't travel to the moon or planets in nothing time then?
I'm not. I'm being rigorous. It isn't rigorous to say clocks measure the flow of time or that we travel through time at the rate of one second per second. Or that space and time are on an equal footing. They aren't. You can't hop back a second. And there's a minus sign on the t term in the Lorentz interval expression [latex]$ds^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2$[/latex]. It's negative because clocks clock up motion. The interval is invariant because when I sit here with my parallel-mirror light clock whilst you go on an out-and-back trip with yours, the light moves the same amount between the events of our departure and rendezvous.
Who's arguing that there is no time? Not me. All I'm saying is that it's an emergent phenomena, like heat, only it's a cumulative measure of motion rather than an average.
I'm not wilfully ignoring anything. You're the one doing that. Now go and read what Einstein actually said:
Ditto. We get all sorts of nonsense, such as the possibility of time travel, the universe rotating around a top that isn't really spinning, space falling inwards in a gravitational field, and so on. Total woo.
You are. Once you understand this, you understand gravity. Then electromagnetism, then other things too. It's like dominoes.Perpetual Student said:
No it isn't. I've read the original Einstein, you should try it sometime. Then you'll find out who's peddling make-believe physics.Perpetual Student said:
I understand it, you don't. If you did, you wouldn't labour under the illusion that the possibility of time travel hinges on causality. That's pop-science garbage, the sort of nonsense promoted by celebrity "physicists" peddling woo like time travel and the multiverse.
I don't. And I'm forever giving references to the rest of the world of physics. I give more and better references than anybody else here.
It isn't negative time. Let's try again. The expression for a spacetime interval in flat Minkowski spacetime is this:
Space and time are different. You can move through space. You can't move through time. Because it's derived from motion through space.
I said time exists. It exists like heat exists. That's an emergent phenomenom too.
Whatever happened to sincere discussion and counterargument? I think it's rather sad that people buy into mystery and woo because they don't understand the physics. And even sadder when somebody explains it, but they just aren't listening. They prefer to cling to their mystery and woo, so they sling mud instead.
