Questions about time

[Tubbythin]

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.

You references are frequently a google page of search results. Do you think that constitutes great refereeing?

 

[RobDegraves]

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.

Space and time are different. You can move through space. You can't move through time. Because it's derived from motion through space.

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.

You still don't get the difference between assertion and proof do you? For that matter, you don't seem to get the irony lurking behind your assertions.

It isn't negative time. Let's try again. The expression for a spacetime interval in flat Minkowski spacetime is this:

I didn't say negative time. Try actually reading.

Time and space are both ways to measure the world. They both have a similar existence and you don't see that whatever you say about time also applies to space.

You don't normally get a reversal of time (ie time travel) in the same way that you don't normally get negative space. What you really don't get is the whole idea, brought up by Einstein, that by combining space and time into a single manifold, it does a better job at explaining and predicting physical processes than any other theory. If you had a better theory, I would expect you to publish it properly... not just come here and repeat your simplistic theory over and over again. For example, you have yet to explain time dilation in a coherent way. I know that you think you have... but that's a different matter altogether.

What you intend to accomplish is beyond me. In all the threads I have seen you post, you purvey endless woo, from cold fusion to time isn't real, to whatever else you are selling. It's boring and repetitive.


Try some real research sometime.

 

[keyfeatures]

A quick skim quickly reveals those posts with content and those that are just appeal to authority and ad hom. I'm enjoying the former.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

ETA: well said ynot.

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.

It is a strawman argument to say that this is the content of physics. We all know that you are ignorant of the content of physics because you keep getting things wrong again and again. It is important to point these things out to the youngsters.

In physics, a claim is made about the velocity of a body relative to other bodies or to some standard. The same is said about acceleration. These are also used in defining forces, e.g., in measuring the force acting on a body that is causing it to deviate from free (fall) motion. We have to have some way of saying what free (fall) motion is and this requires that we have some definition of time for that motion.

You are saying that one standard of time for motion is correct. But you fail to produce this standard.

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.

Again, you fail to produce this standard. Against what are you measuring motion? You are saying that there is some absolute reference frame when you cannot provide one and that is not how physics is done.

How are you measuring [latex]-dt^2[/latex] when according to you there is no actual change in time. If you would like to replace that equation with something else, as those who argue about the nature of heat do, then you should do so.

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.

And you need to show your work, mathematically.

I'm not wilfully ignoring anything.

Yes, you are clearly ignoring the caveats on the website that you are citing. You are also ignoring the caveats Einstein said. Your cherry-picking may impress those who do no research, but it clearly fails as soon as someone starts reading.

It doesn't blow or flow like the old luminiferous aether. Go and read some of the gravitational aether papers on arXiv too. But you won't, will you? You'll just wilfully ignore them.

I actually interact regularly with the author of one of those papers. The work of that author in no way supports your claims. Since you can't be bothered to even cherry-pick from those papers, I assume that you realize that.

 

[RobDegraves]

@keyfeatures

A quick skim quickly reveals those posts with content and those that are just appeal to authority and ad hom. I'm enjoying the former.

If that is a poorly veiled reference to my posts...

Appeal to authority...

The appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[1]

Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
a says p about S.
Therefore, p is correct.

The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]

The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.

These conditions may also simply be incorporated into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:[2]

X holds that A is true
X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
The consensus of experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.

Fallacious appeals to authority

Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the two conditions from the previous section

Unfortunately for you, in this case an appeal to authority is valid. The vast majority (if not all) of legitimate physicists would disagree with Farsight. In addition, the subject is complex enough to warrant looking at what experts are saying rather than make up our own theories based on a lack of proper understanding of the subject matter.

Just as I would not want to see Farsight operating as a surgeon, I would not expect his word alone to carry in a complex subject like relativity without some evidence that he has an advanced understanding of the subject.

So far that has not happened.



PS... having just read Kwalish Kid's post, it seems obvious that his knowledge of physics is better than Farsight's or mine. It is significant that I have yet to see Farsight respond substantially to his posts. I would be interested in seeing that.

 

[Perpetual Student]

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.

These repeated references to time travel are pointless. No one here has made any references to time travel. You keep conjuring up this straw man and knocking it down in some sort of useless debating ritual.

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.

This isn't religion. We do not read original papers to get closer to some spiritually inspired truth. Science involves the relentless accumulation and fine tuning of ideas. Modern papers and textbooks are how we access, learn and understand science. There are tens of thousands of physicists throughout the world who are immersed in the concepts of modern physics, which include all the ideas of Einstein as they are now understood after over a hundred years of accumulated information and analysis.
Since you seem to be so at odds with current thinking, I suggest you have misunderstood your reading of "the original Einstein," that you so love to boast about. Perhaps you might be better served pursuing a real education in physics instead of wasting your time regurgitating the same delusional mantra. In any case, it does not appear that anyone here is buying your act.

 

[Perpetual Student]

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.

Yes, I did overstate the case. Nevertheless, there are quite a few cosmologists who would agree with the statement that time, space, matter and energy began 13.75 or so billion years ago.

However, those that claim that there actually is time and that it is a dimension do not necessarily claim that it has some kind of independent existence outside of any existing thing. Time is part of descriptions of movement--particularly acceleration--and of physical processes that do not necessarily involve movement like particle decay. In order to describe what a force is or what a deviation from free motion is, we need to have some definition of time. We cannot pretend that one thing is somehow prior to the other.

Yes.

 

[ynot]

How much "stuff" is there between the Earth and the Sun?

Do you think that there is absolutely nothing between the Earth and Sun?

I answered your question. Now it's your turn . . .

 

[Farsight]

I didn't say negative time. Try actually reading.

I read what you said. You also said everything you say about time applies to space as well so I explained the Lorentz interval for you, and why the t term was negative...

Time and space are both ways to measure the world. They both have a similar existence and you don't see that whatever you say about time also applies to space.

...but you still insist that time and space are on an equal footing? They aren't.

You don't normally get a reversal of time (ie time travel) in the same way that you don't normally get negative space.

That's nothing to do with it. You have freedom of motion in the space dimensions. You have no such freedom of motion in the time dimension.

What you really don't get is the whole idea, brought up by Einstein, that by combining space and time into a single manifold, it does a better job at explaining and predicting physical processes than any other theory. If you had a better theory, I would expect you to publish it properly... not just come here and repeat your simplistic theory over and over again.

I get it. I really get it. And the thing I got first was that it was Minkowski who combined space and time into a single manifold.

For example, you have yet to explain time dilation in a coherent way. I know that you think you have... but that's a different matter altogether. What you intend to accomplish is beyond me. In all the threads I have seen you post, you purvey endless woo, from cold fusion to time isn't real, to whatever else you are selling. It's boring and repetitive. Try some real research sometime.

LOL.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I read what you said. You also said everything you say about time applies to space as well so I explained the Lorentz interval for you, and why the t term was negative...

That you think that this is relevant to his comment doesn't make you look very bright. He was making a response to a set of specific comments. The burden is on you to show how the interval is relevant to these initial comments.

That's nothing to do with it. You have freedom of motion in the space dimensions. You have no such freedom of motion in the time dimension.

Except that we clearly do, since we are free to describe part of our motion in whatever reference frame we wish, so we can call a different amount of our motion as motion through time. This is pretty basic relativity theory.

 

[Farsight]

PS... having just read Kwalish Kid's post, it seems obvious that his knowledge of physics is better than Farsight's or mine. It is significant that I have yet to see Farsight respond substantially to his posts.

You're fooling nobody. I give substantial responses. Here's another one:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

It is a strawman argument to say that this is the content of physics. We all know that you are ignorant of the content of physics because you keep getting things wrong again and again. It is important to point these things out to the youngsters.

No physics there. Moving on...

In physics, a claim is made about the velocity of a body relative to other bodies or to some standard. The same is said about acceleration. These are also used in defining forces, e.g., in measuring the force acting on a body that is causing it to deviate from free (fall) motion. We have to have some way of saying what free (fall) motion is and this requires that we have some definition of time for that motion.

This is a digression plus a circular argument that ignores natural units as per my post #140. The Lorentz factor γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²) employs natural units, wherein c=1 and v is a fraction of c. We work out time dilation as for example 1/√(1-0.99²/1²) = 1/√(1-0.98) = 1/√0.2 = 1/0.142 = 7. And yet there's no t in the expression. Score one to me.

You are saying that one standard of time for motion is correct. But you fail to produce this standard.

Kwalish Kid hasn't been paying attention. I produced the standard in post #63 concerning the NIST definition of the second. In the NIST fountain Caesium clock, hyperfine transitions emit microwaves with a "resonant frequency". But frequency is measured in Hertz, which is cycles per second, and the second isn't defined yet. So frequency goes out of the window. We're counting incoming microwave peaks, and when we get to 9,192,631,770, we say that's a second. Like the metre it's defined using the motion of light. Score two to me.

Again, you fail to produce this standard. Against what are you measuring motion? You are saying that there is some absolute reference frame when you cannot provide one and that is not how physics is done.

Definitely not paying attention. I explained this on the Terra revolving round Sol thread. I said the CMBR allows us to gauge our motion through the universe. It doesn't provide an "absolute reference frame" in that inside a black box you can't tell whether you're moving. But all you have to do is look out the window and then you can. The universe is as absolute as it gets, motion is relative, but when it's relative to the universe, that's the end of the line. Score three to me.

How are you measuring [latex]-dt^2[/latex] when according to you there is no actual change in time. If you would like to replace that equation with something else, as those who argue about the nature of heat do, then you should do so.

Total straw man, I never said or suggested that there's no actual change in time. Score four to me.

And you need to show your work, mathematically.

I did, in post #140 where I explained the Lorentz factor γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²) and showed how it's based on Pythagoras' Theorem. Simple stuff. Score five to me.

Yes, you are clearly ignoring the caveats on the website that you are citing. You are also ignoring the caveats Einstein said. Your cherry-picking may impress those who do no research, but it clearly fails as soon as someone starts reading.

This is a physics-free jibe that attempts to persuade the reader to dismiss what Einstein said on the specious grounds of "cherry picking". And fails miserably. I'll take a point for that, because if there's one thing I don't like it's people dismissing Einstein and encouraging others to do so. Score six to me.

I actually interact regularly with the author of one of those papers. The work of that author in no way supports your claims. Since you can't be bothered to even cherry-pick from those papers, I assume that you realize that.

Yawn. Another physics-free ad hominem. the fact remains that there are plenty of papers on gravitational aether. And since I give lots of regference whilst Kwalish Kid gives none, I'll take another point.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I would be interested in seeing that.

See above. Seven nil. I wiped the floor with the guy. Only doubtless you will try to pretend otherwise.

 

[Farsight]

That you think that this is relevant to his comment doesn't make you look very bright. He was making a response to a set of specific comments. The burden is on you to show how the interval is relevant to these initial comments.

I've responded to his comments. If he seeks a further reponse or clarification he only has to ask, and I'll be only to glad to give it.

Except that we clearly do, since we are free to describe part of our motion in whatever reference frame we wish, so we can call a different amount of our motion as motion through time.

Except that we clearly don't. You have no freedom of motion in the time dimension. If you did, you could hop back a second. Or take a trip to the middle of next week. And guess what? You can't. And should you take a fast round trip and come back, you don't arrive in my past. You merely experience less local motion because of your macroscopic motion. It's that simple. There's no time flowing between those parallel-mirrors. Just light moving.

This is pretty basic relativity theory.

Yawn. You don't understand basic relativity theory at all. Not a bit. And I'm going to bed.

 

[RobDegraves]

That's a lot of posts to respond to... stamina is the least of farsight's problems. That is not unusual with cranks.


Anyhoo...I'm just going to answer the ones addressed to me since it's already a huge waste of time. I just hate to let a crank get away with it just because he has more time to waste than I do.

You're fooling nobody. I give substantial responses. Here's another one:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Yep... just as substantial as ever.

I read what you said. You also said everything you say about time applies to space as well so I explained the Lorentz interval for you, and why the t term was negative...

So... strawman much?

See above. Seven nil. I wiped the floor with the guy. Only doubtless you will try to pretend otherwise.

The sad part is that you seem to think it's true. I guess it's not hard to win when you ignore any other score than your own.

...but you still insist that time and space are on an equal footing? They aren't.

They are.

See.. I can assert with the best of them.

That's nothing to do with it. You have freedom of motion in the space dimensions. You have no such freedom of motion in the time dimension.

Complete freedom of motion does not have anything to do with whether or not it's a dimension. Limited motion is still motion.

Let's take as an example an object that exists in only two dimensions. It would not have any freedom to move about in the third dimension on it's own. However, that does not mean that the third dimension does not exist.

I get it. I really get it. And the thing I got first was that it was Minkowski who combined space and time into a single manifold.

I said that Einstein brought up the idea, not that he developed it. Do you really think that semantics is going to make you right about physics?

Annnd lastly...

Originally Posted by RobDegraves View Post
For example, you have yet to explain time dilation in a coherent way. I know that you think you have... but that's a different matter altogether. What you intend to accomplish is beyond me. In all the threads I have seen you post, you purvey endless woo, from cold fusion to time isn't real, to whatever else you are selling. It's boring and repetitive. Try some real research sometime.

LOL.

That's the kind of answer a 12 year old would give while playing a video game.

Try answering my questions on time dilation with actual evidence and actual science.



So... I beat farsight 7 nil too. I win.

Wow... it is easy when you can just make up your own score. Might be a tad harder if he tried this in a real publication against real physicists instead of being beaten up by a historian on a public forum.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

This is a digression plus a circular argument that ignores natural units as per my post #140. The Lorentz factor γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²) employs natural units, wherein c=1 and v is a fraction of c. We work out time dilation as for example 1/√(1-0.99²/1²) = 1/√(1-0.98) = 1/√0.2 = 1/0.142 = 7. And yet there's no t in the expression. Score one to me.

You are confusing the fact that we cannot describe motion without space and time and we cannot describe space and time without space and time with a circular argument. These are things that come together in physics; however we can look at how physics works and notice these things. If one only focuses on a small but of the mathematics, like you do, and not understand what it has to do with measurements, predictions, and explanations in physics, then one can get confused.

That there are no units in an expression of time dilation is not all that amazing, since it is something that will be applied to a quantity with units to produce another quantity with those same units.

Kwalish Kid hasn't been paying attention. I produced the standard in post #63 concerning the NIST definition of the second. In the NIST fountain Caesium clock, hyperfine transitions emit microwaves with a "resonant frequency". But frequency is measured in Hertz, which is cycles per second, and the second isn't defined yet. So frequency goes out of the window. We're counting incoming microwave peaks, and when we get to 9,192,631,770, we say that's a second. Like the metre it's defined using the motion of light. Score two to me.

Which atomic clock are you using as your standard? Since we can easily produce two atomic clocks that disagree, yet here you are claiming that your universal standard for time is an atomic clock.

It may be that those of us who take the time to learn the basics of physics, things that are done without access to atomic clocks, have a better understanding of the role time plays in physics than those who merely read about atomic clocks. Lots of physics was done before the invention of these clocks and continues to be done without these clocks.

Definitely not paying attention. I explained this on the Terra revolving round Sol thread. I said the CMBR allows us to gauge our motion through the universe. It doesn't provide an "absolute reference frame" in that inside a black box you can't tell whether you're moving. But all you have to do is look out the window and then you can. The universe is as absolute as it gets, motion is relative, but when it's relative to the universe, that's the end of the line. Score three to me.

This is a nice romantic view of physics. However, can you show me how to do any calculations using this standard of yours? If not, then how can it possibly be a standard? Can you show me how to calculate the perihelion shift of Mercury using this standard?

You are the one claiming that this is the absolute standard. If it is as you say, let us see how to use this standard.

Total straw man, I never said or suggested that there's no actual change in time. Score four to me.

Earlier in your post you claimed we could get rid of time completely. So show us how to recover changes in time.

I did, in post #140 where I explained the Lorentz factor γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²) and showed how it's based on Pythagoras' Theorem. Simple stuff. Score five to me.

You can score when you show us how to use this in a physics application.

This is a physics-free jibe that attempts to persuade the reader to dismiss what Einstein said on the specious grounds of "cherry picking". And fails miserably. I'll take a point for that, because if there's one thing I don't like it's people dismissing Einstein and encouraging others to do so. Score six to me.

Well, why do you ignore all the mathematics that Einstein wrote? Everyone who has ever done any serious study of Einstein's theory has said that your theory is incorrect and that your selective quoting of one public address and one early paper by Einstein (before GR) misrepresents his work. Why haven't you, in the many years you've worked on this theory, never bothered to learn the math?

Yawn. Another physics-free ad hominem. the fact remains that there are plenty of papers on gravitational aether. And since I give lots of regference whilst Kwalish Kid gives none, I'll take another point.

I'm only pointing out the content of your references--that I can use them against you is not an ad hominem. You provide all that's needed to undermine your points.

 

[keyfeatures]

This is an interesting pitch for the TSA.

The plausibility of the TSA first principles are tested by coupling to fundamental matter. Yang–Mills theory works. I criticize the original form of the TSA since I find that tacit assumptions remain and Dirac fields are not permitted. However, comparison with Kuchaˇr’s hypersurface formalism allows me to argue that all the known fundamental matter fields can be incorporated into the TSA. The spacetime picture appears to possess more kinematics than strictly necessary for building Lagrangians for physically-realized fundamental matter fields. I debate whether space may be regarded as primary rather than spacetime. The emergence (or not) of the Special Relativity Principles and 4-d General Covariance in the various TSA alternatives is investigated, as is the Equivalence Principle, and the Problem of Time in Quantum Gravity.

 

[Tubbythin]

The Lorentz factor γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²) employs natural units, wherein c=1 and v is a fraction of c. We work out time dilation as for example 1/√(1-0.99²/1²) = 1/√(1-0.98) = 1/√0.2 = 1/0.142 = 7.

You can use any relevant way of measuring speed that you like in the Lorentz factor. Natural units, m/s, miles/hour, mm/day, furlongs/fortnight. As long as you use the same units for v and c you'll get the same answer. That's because γ is dimensionless.

 

[Michael C]

I answered your question. Now it's your turn . . .

No, you didn't actually answer my question. My question was:

How much "stuff" is there between the Earth and the Sun?

You gave an answer that listed some of the things that you consider to be "stuff", but didn't answer my question of "how much?":

It's choc-a-block full of non-material stuff. 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.

The reason I asked you this question is this: you stated that "distance" owes its existence to "stuff", so I'd like you to clarify what you mean by "stuff" and give a way of quantifying it. The question for you is still open: how much "stuff" do you consider to be between the Earth and the Sun? Note that, in order to state how much there is of something, you need to specify a number and a unit.

As to your question to me:

Do you think that there is absolutely nothing between the Earth and Sun?

The answer is "no".

 

[keyfeatures]

The question for you is still open: how much "stuff" do you consider to be between the Earth and the Sun? Note that, in order to state how much there is of something, you need to specify a number and a unit.

Well everyone knows it's 25.74 million drumboids, or approximately 42 zoundscruths.

 

[Farsight]

That's a lot of posts to respond to... stamina is the least of farsight's problems. That is not unusual with cranks...

Your response is abusive with minimal physics content.

All: please note that JREF suffers something like a "creationist naysayer" problem when it comes to physics. Some people with scant understanding dismiss evidence and explanation and refuse to enter into sincere discussion. Instead they spoil interesting threads with mudslinging. You soon get to know who they are. I can only urge you to give them the attention they deserve.

 

[Farsight]

This is an interesting pitch for the TSA.

The plausibility of the TSA first principles are tested by coupling to fundamental matter. Yang–Mills theory works. I criticize the original form of the TSA since I find that tacit assumptions remain and Dirac fields are not permitted. However, comparison with Kuchaˇr’s hypersurface formalism allows me to argue that all the known fundamental matter fields can be incorporated into the TSA. The spacetime picture appears to possess more kinematics than strictly necessary for building Lagrangians for physically-realized fundamental matter fields. I debate whether space may be regarded as primary rather than spacetime. The emergence (or not) of the Special Relativity Principles and 4-d General Covariance in the various TSA alternatives is investigated, as is the Equivalence Principle, and the Problem of Time in Quantum Gravity.

Looks interesting, keyfeatures, thanks, I'll check it out.