Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 131 of 131
Like Tree10Likes

Thread: Does lack of Mass Create Time ????

  1. #101  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    That's pretty much exactly what I said here: "Either that, or elementary particles are condensed energy, and the energy can "unfold/unbind/disperse" and "refold/bind/condense" into new arrangements... (or just morph into new arrangements without fully unfolding/unbinding/dispersing/etc...
    Well, they are more than just "condensed energy". They have many other parameters which aren't captured by that (spin, charge, color, etc.)

    But it doesn't really address the issue that nothing happens for some time and then it decays. And the "some time" is different for each (unstable) particle.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    First of all, I believe in a deterministic universe, and there is no evidence to the contrary.
    How about the probabilistic (non-deterministic) nature of quantum effects (such as the time and decay products of a muon )
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    It would only make sense that you also do not understand the idea of/concept of/reasoning behind a thought experiment. This however, is not my problem. I'm not going to go over a thought experiment with someone too stubborn to handle such a thing.
    Tell me, what is it with your agressiveness ? You are accusing us of being rude to you, but we on the other hand are supposed to just sit there and let the mud that you throw come at us ? If you want my advise ( which you probably don't ) you better take a step back and re-think your approach here. Getting emotional every time someone does not agree with your version of things, and then pulling the "insult" card when you are being called on it will pretty much guarantee that you won't fit into this community very well, as is evident in most of the threads you are currently involved in.

    This however, is not my problem.
    What is your problem though is your claim is not verifiable or falsifiable if you don't use physically real scenarios. The real reason is that you don't want to use the muon because it shows your idea in a pretty bad light.

    Your assertion that it exists without change uses a very specific, narrow idea of the word change, and therefore is moot.
    So what is your idea of "change" in a muon ?

    First of all, I believe in a deterministic universe
    That's too bad, because the quantum world evidently isn't deterministic.

    there is no evidence to the contrary
    ...except the entire quantum world.

    Second of all I consider a fluctuation of energy to be a "moving part".
    What fluctuation of energy ?

    Or not.
    That's a very convincing argument, I have to say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    It would only make sense that you also do not understand the idea of/concept of/reasoning behind a thought experiment.
    Your grasp of thought experiments seems as naive and ignorant as your grasp of philosophy.
    A thought experiment is not just "making shit up".

    But, since you have nothing, I guess you are left with either making shit up or keeping your stupid mouth shut.
    Unfortunately, your arrogance prevents you from doing the latter.
    PhDemon likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    literally nothing changes for some amount of time.
    For how long, did nothing change?
    For precisely that amount of time. More technically, this is an issue of symmetry - you can shift a set of events on a space-like hypersurface into the direction by applying a vector field to it in such a way that all length are conserved; this is called a Killing vector field. Physically this would present as an amount of time during which nothing at all changes; the original and the resulting hypersurfaces are perfectly symmetric. This is mathematically rigorous ( Killing equation ) on a 4-dimensional space-time manifold, and does not mean that time ceases to exist in the absence of change, since the Killing 4-vectors have a well defined and finite norm.

    And btw, I really think it is you now chasing your own tail. Having read through this thread this morning you have presented absolutely nothing which supports your case in any way, shape or form. As things stand, I would see no reason whatsoever to abandon GR ( which specifically treats time as a geometric dimension ) in favour of your unsupported claim.
    All you did was dodge the question, which is apparently uncomfortable for you to consider. Granted it was a trap, because there can't be a concept of "some amount of time" if literally everything in the universe has stopped. It might as well be instantaneous. The point is, it's impossible to know. Without some kind of magical frame of reference outside to mark off the time that the entire universe has stopped... It is meaningless to talk about time at all, since it doesn't exist when everything has stopped. The only reason you are refusing to grasp this elementary concept, is because you are stubborn.

    I assume you are saying that while you are busy shifting your made up hypersurface, from one area to another, nothing contained within the hypersurface changes. That does not preclude the rest of the universe, however, and you can infer the time from the rest of the universe in comparison to what is essentially a single object (the hypersurface and everything it contains) for the duration of the translation.

    The idea of time as a dimension is an analogy, a metaphor, just like the very idea of 3 dimensions of space. Metaphor. The reason we use it, is because it is an accurate model.

    Let me define model for you, since you are making a fundamental error of assuming that model = reality.

    mod·el (mdl)n.1. A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another, often larger object.
    2. a. A preliminary work or construction that serves as a plan from which a final product is to be made: a clay model ready for casting.
    b. Such a work or construction used in testing or perfecting a final product: a test model of a solar-powered vehicle.

    3. A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further study of its characteristics: a model of generative grammar; a model of an atom; an economic model.
    4. A style or design of an item: My car is last year's model.
    5. One serving as an example to be imitated or compared: a model of decorum. See Synonyms at ideal.
    6. One that serves as the subject for an artist, especially a person employed to pose for a painter, sculptor, or photographer.
    7. A person employed to display merchandise, such as clothing or cosmetics.
    8. Zoology An animal whose appearance is copied by a mimic.

    v. mod·eled also mod·elled, mod·el·ing also mod·el·ling, mod·els also mod·els
    v.tr.1. To make or construct a model of.
    2. To plan, construct, or fashion according to a model.
    3. To make conform to a chosen standard: He modeled his manners on his father's.
    4. a. To make by shaping a plastic substance: modeled a bust from clay.
    b. To form (clay, for example) into a shape.

    5. To display by wearing or posing.
    6. In painting, drawing, and photography, to give a three-dimensional appearance to, as by shading or highlighting.

    v.intr.1. To make a model.
    2. To serve or work as a model.

    adj.1. Being, serving as, or used as a model.
    2. Worthy of imitation: a model child.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    It would only make sense that you also do not understand the idea of/concept of/reasoning behind a thought experiment.
    Your grasp of thought experiments seems as naive and ignorant as your grasp of philosophy.
    A thought experiment is not just "making shit up".

    But, since you have nothing, I guess you are left with either making shit up or keeping your stupid mouth shut.
    Unfortunately, your arrogance prevents you from doing the latter.
    That was just about the most ignorant thing anyone I have been talking with here has said.

    It's not surprising, coming from you. I still have yet to see you post anything of any value.

    But hey, you've got some serious competition here with your peers. Keep it up and you may just get the gold medal for the most ignorant fool to ever exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    It might as well be instantaneous
    Except that it isn't. It is separated in space-time.

    All you did was dodge the question, which is apparently uncomfortable for you to consider.
    See above.

    The reason we use it, is because it is an accurate model.
    Precisely. That is what physics does - develop models for reality, which are then tested against experiment and observation. Now tell me, how do you test your claim that time=change against experiment and observation ?

    Let me define model for you, since you are making a fundamental error of assuming that model = reality.
    I am aware of the distinction; however, your ideas are models too, so this point is really irrelevant. All theories in physics - without exception, and including your own - are models.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    What is your problem though is your claim is not verifiable or falsifiable if you don't use physically real scenarios. The real reason is that you don't want to use the muon because it shows your idea in a pretty bad light.
    Define "thought experiment" for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    First of all, I believe in a deterministic universe
    That's too bad, because the quantum world evidently isn't deterministic.
    There is no evidence that suggests that the statistical model is more than just statistics of "hidden variables".

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Or not.
    That's a very convincing argument, I have to say.
    You're clearly an idiot if you think "Or not" was the argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    There are various people, on this forum and others, who insist, variously, that "time doesn't exist", "time is a result of motion", "time is a result of change" and similar ideas.

    They insist they are right and that our daily experience of time is an illusion, and the time used by science is just a "model that happens to work".

    Yet none of them are able to offer any evidence or argument beyond "no, but really, time doesn't exists [is change/motionmetaphor/etc]" and insist we take their word for it. Boring and unscientific.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Define "thought experiment" for me.
    Your definition seems to be "a physically unreal scenario I invent to support my case (because the real world won't play by my rules)". Will that do?

    There is no evidence that suggests that the statistical model is more than just statistics of "hidden variables".
    I really cannot understand why someone who has already made up their mind (and then closed it) is studying science at all. Why not just live in your fantasy world and ignore the evidence?

    Oh, and: Bell's Inequality.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    The reason we use it, is because it is an accurate model.
    Precisely. That is what physics does - develop models for reality, which are then tested against experiment and observation. Now tell me, how do you test your claim that time=change against experiment and observation ?
    It's not a claim, nor a theory, nor a model, or anything of the sort. It's a principle. An observation. A fact. The "Theory of Time" is a theory, using the observation of rates of change as evidence. How is this such a hard thing for you to grasp?

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Let me define model for you, since you are making a fundamental error of assuming that model = reality.
    I am aware of the distinction; however, your ideas are models too, so this point is really irrelevant. All theories in physics - without exception, and including your own - are models.
    Show your work. Explain why my idea is a model, how it follows that if it is a model, my point is irrelevant, and how my idea is even a theory. Because if you can't, using sound logic, then by logic, you are necessarily wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Define "thought experiment" for me.
    I am not after thought experiments. I am after a way to physically test your claim; if you can offer no way to either verify or falsify it, then it will forever remain an unsupported assertion.

    You're clearly an idiot if you think "Or not" was the argument.
    What I think is that you don't have an argument, and by the looks of it you have yet to convince anyone here of the opposite.

    There is no evidence that suggests that the statistical model is more than just statistics of "hidden variables".
    There is also no evidence to suggest that "hidden variables" are, in fact, physically real.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    [deleted not very good joke that would just be a distraction...]
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Show your work. Explain why my idea is a model, how it follows that if it is a model, my point is irrelevant, and how my idea is even a theory.
    Ha ha, nice try, but no mate. The claim is yours, so you support your own ideas, not the other way around. I have already explained to you by way of the muon why your time is not equal to change. It's over to you now to suggest some way to verify or falsify your claims.

    Because if you can't, using sound logic, then by logic, you are necessarily wrong
    This is a logical fallacy, and a typical hallmark of cranks and crackpots, of which we have had plenty over the years. Try again

    It's a principle. An observation. A fact.
    No. And it isn't even a valid model as it stands. It is merely a personal belief.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Define "thought experiment" for me.
    Your definition seems to be "a physically unreal scenario I invent to support my case (because the real world won't play by my rules)". Will that do?
    You're an idiot by choice, it seems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    There is no evidence that suggests that the statistical model is more than just statistics of "hidden variables".
    I really cannot understand why someone who has already made up their mind (and then closed it) is studying science at all. Why not just live in your fantasy world and ignore the evidence?

    Oh, and: Bell's Inequality.
    I have neither made up my mind, nor closed it. I'm just more capable of using my brain. Let's see what this Bell's Inequality has for you.

    As I thought. Not only a lack of knowledge on your part, but a lack of knowledge that could have been addressed within your own source.

    "Three years later, Franson published a paper showing that the timing constraints in this experiment were not adequate to confirm that locality was violated. "

    "Experimental tests of Bell's Inequality are ongoing, but none has yet fully addressed the issue raised by Franson. In addition there is an issue of detector efficiency. By postulating new laws of physics, one can get the expected correlations without any nonlocal effects unless the detectors are close to 90% efficient."

    "The subject is alive theoretically as well. Eberhard and later Fine uncovered further subtleties in Bell's argument. Some physicists argue that it may be possible to construct a local theory that does not respect certain assumptions in the derivation of Bell's Inequality. The subject is not yet closed, and may yet provide more interesting insights into the subtleties of quantum mechanics."

    I'll accept your apology now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    By the way - this morning I found an invisible pink unicorn in my garden. What, you can't prove me wrong ? That means I must be right !!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    So all the experiments done so far confirm Bell's inequality and that, therefore, there do not appear to be any hidden variables. But you are going to latch on to the areas where there is still some doubt (which there always will be because this is science) as confirming your beliefs. Even though, that doubt is "we don't know yet" rather then evidence for hidden variables.

    This is a "god of the gaps" argument: as long as there is a possibility you might turn out to be right, you are going to insist that those as yet untested areas are all that is important. You won't accept that the balance of probability is that your world-view is wrong. Sounds like a closed mind to me.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Show your work. Explain why my idea is a model, how it follows that if it is a model, my point is irrelevant, and how my idea is even a theory.
    Ha ha, nice try, but no mate. The claim is yours, so you support your own ideas, not the other way around. I have already explained to you by way of the muon why your time is not equal to change. It's over to you now to suggest some way to verify or falsify your claims.
    Your conclusion was not supported by your premise, and I already gave you the evidence within your own sources as to why. Your act of ignoring them is not a form of argument. Additionally, since I have no theory or model here, the onus is on you to explain why it is in fact, a model or a theory, and furthermore to substantiate YOUR claim, that it is irrelevant, because that claim of YOURS has no ground on which to stand.

    You can't just pretend, and cleverly worm your way out of this. You dug this hole, now you need to get yourself out. I'm afraid your cheap tricks don't work on me. Feel free to give up at any time. Because your efforts are futile. You make no effort to back up anything you say, and when evidence from your own sources refutes what you say, you ignore it.

    It's PATHETIC.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Because if you can't, using sound logic, then by logic, you are necessarily wrong
    This is a logical fallacy, and a typical hallmark of cranks and crackpots, of which we have had plenty over the years. Try again
    Which logical fallacy states that it is a fallacy to suggest that "an illogical statement is not logical." Indulge me. I gave you the freedom to create a logical statement that supports your conclusion. I'm not seeing it. All I see is stubborn ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    It's a principle. An observation. A fact.
    No. And it isn't even a valid model as it stands. It is merely a personal belief.
    Prove your claim, or at least give some form of argument to back up your statement.

    I never claimed it was a model in the first place, that you are asserting that I did, and then saying it's not... THAT is a fallacy.

    Your ability to use logic is laughable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    So all the experiments done so far confirm Bell's inequality and that, therefore, there do not appear to be any hidden variables. But you are going to latch on to the areas where there is still some doubt (which there always will be because this is science) as confirming your beliefs. Even though, that doubt is "we don't know yet" rather then evidence for hidden variables.

    This is a "god of the gaps" argument: as long as there is a possibility you might turn out to be right, you are going to insist that those as yet untested areas are all that is important. You won't accept that the balance of probability is that your world-view is wrong. Sounds like a closed mind to me.
    I didn't say "the universe is governed by hidden variables". I said, it is my belief, that the universe is deterministic (same thing as hidden variables). Since the theory that there are no hidden variables is an unsubstantiated claim, if MY poistion is a "God is in the gaps" argument, then so is yours. You however, are incapable of imagining that the universe could be deterministic, and then accusing me of being closed minded... even though I went into the Bell's Inequality suggestion fully expecting to be proven wrong.

    This entire thing is just a distraction from the point in the first place, and you've shown over and over and over and over again, that you're a goddamned fool. We're done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    That was just about the most ignorant thing anyone I have been talking with here has said.
    Be glad you don't read your own posts then!

    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    That was just about the most ignorant thing anyone I have been talking with here has said.
    Have you finally stopped talking to yourself, then?

    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    That was just about the most ignorant thing anyone I have been talking with here has said.
    Dunning and Kruger called - they need you to go back for further testing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    That was just about the most accurate thing anyone I have been talking with here has said.
    FTFY

    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    That was just about the most ignorant thing anyone I have been talking with here has said.
    [Citation needed]
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Since the theory that there are no hidden variables is an unsubstantiated claim
    It is not an unsubstantiated claim. It is derived from theory and, so far, compatible with all the evidence. That is pretty good confirmation for a scientific theory.

    You however, are incapable of imagining that the universe could be deterministic
    I am quite capable of imagining such a thing. It seems to be intuitive, simple and, unfortunately, wrong. When there is some evidence for a hidden variable theory, I will accept it without grumbling at all.

    p.s. It would be nice if you stopped the insults. (Not that I really care as this is, after all, the Internet.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Which logical fallacy states that it is a fallacy to suggest that "an illogical statement is not logical." Indulge me.
    See post #116.

    Your conclusion was not supported by your premise, and I already gave you the evidence within your own sources as to why.
    Remind me again, will you - what is that evidence again that no time exists in the absence of change ?

    Your conclusion was not supported by your premise
    My premise is ( and was all along ) that GR is an accurate model for the macroscopic universe, in that time can be treated as a geometric dimension. My conclusion is that time exists even in the absence of change. My evidence is the existence of decaying elementary particles as explained on the thread, in addition to this empirical evidence for the correctness of the original premise : Modern Tests of Relativity

    YOUR claim, that it is irrelevant, because that claim of YOURS has no ground on which to stand
    My claim is ( and remains ! ) that GR is an accurate model, and hence that time exists in the absence of change. See above. I have supported my stance, as is evident on this thread. You on the other hand have offered no evidence that time ceases to exist in the absence of change.

    Prove your claim, or at least give some form of argument to back up your statement.
    Your claim is not testable or verifiable.
    Your claim is not falsifiable.
    Your claim makes no unique predictions.

    Your claim does not conform to the scientific method, and hence is merely an unsupported personal belief. Go on then, get the thesaurus out
    RedPanda and PhDemon like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    There's no point in further conversation with either of you two. I can't use unstoppable logic and evidence to move an unthinking wall.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    There's no point in further conversation with either of you two. I can't use unstoppable logic and evidence to move an unthinking wall.
    I am asking you again - will you please remind us of the evidence which you claim to have presented that shows that time ceases to exist in the absence of change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    No. No. HELL NO. I'm done.

    You both ignore evidence that proves you wrong, you both avoid questions you don't want to answer because it would invalidate you, and you swap around statements to make me seem wrong, by superimposing a different statement of yours in place of the one I was arguing against.

    I refuse to deal with your bullshit any more. It's not that I am folding, because I stand firm on my ground. I simply refuse to participate in a debate which is completely bullshit.

    I won't ignore either of you two, since you often have valid interesting things to say, but this conversation is OVER.

    As for RedPanda, he never has anything valuable to say, ever, so that will be one easy troll to deal with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Remind me again, will you - what is that evidence again that no time exists in the absence of change ?
    Does string theory or loop quantum gravity even address this theoretically?

    As in time before the Big Bang.

    :EDIT:

    Maybe the wrong time to ask such a question (suspension above) especially since I have no idea what you were responding to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Does string theory or loop quantum gravity even address this theoretically?
    As in time before the Big Bang.
    I don't think any of these theories has anything definite to say on the matter; but then again, both ST and LQG are works in process.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Member Velexia, if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    215
    There's no heat, just vapidity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    If you have nothing that can change, there is nothing to measure, thus, no time.
    <br>
    <br>
    This isn't how science currently understands time; in GR time is a geometric aspect of the underlying space-time manifold, and its existence is quite independent of any "processes". <br>
    <br>
    <font color="#333333">You'd have to apply the math involved to determine just how much effect the time dilation has, and how well it matches the observed reality, to see whether it is "some" or "all" of the explanation.</font>
    <br>
    <br>
    Metric expansion has nothing to do with time dilation; the expansion coefficient in the FLRW metric is found at the <em><strong>spatial</strong></em> components of the metric only.
    <br>
    <br>
    The theory of Metric Expansion does only deal with the 3 spatial dimensions, but the observations that lead to Metric Expansion could just as easily be caused by time as by space. The idea that space itself expands is just the accepted hypothesis. It yields predictions that match observation. A time based hypothesis would yield identical predictions, though (and would therefore match observation just as perfectly.)<br>
    <br>
    Only trouble is,.... a time based hypothesis is much, much, harder to imagine than a space based one. <br>
    <br><br>
    Quote Originally Posted by tsafa View Post
    <font color="#000000"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman">The implication here is that as we watch a distant galaxy move through "seemingly" equal-distant points A, B,C, D, E...... Point A = 100 years in the future, Point B = 300 years in the future, Point C = 700 years in the future, Point D = 2,000 years in the future, Point E = 10,000 years in the future. We get the appearance that the velocity of the Galaxy is accelerating, when it is in fact the flow of Time that is accelerating due to less and less Mass between the galaxies. <br>
    <br>
    </span></font><a href="http://poconogym.com/mass-time.html" target="_blank">Does lack of Mass Create Time ????</a><font color="#000000"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman"><br>
    </span></font>
    <br>
    <br>
    Ok.... what I'm missing here is..... <br>
    <br>
    Does a beam of light base its decision of how fast to move on the average mass of the entire path it *will* travel? If it changes speed based on the local region it's traveling through then it would speed up as it moved into an empty region of space, but then it would slow down again once it started getting close to Earth........ which would cancel the red/blue shifting effect entirely. <br>
    <br>
    If the photon knows where it will be going before it gets there (which is entirely possible), then I guess it could base its speed of travel on the average matter density of the entire path. However..... I think that would give it a blue shift instead of a red shift. <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Velexia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    <br>
    Unless you can provide some evidence of what this mysterious undetectable "something" is....
    <br>
    <br>
    Evidence: The muon decays after a specific amount of time.
    <br>
    <br>
    OK. Lets step back. Your argument is, if I understand it: <strong>If time is change, then something must be happening before the muon decays. </strong><br>
    <br>
    Is that correct?<br>
    <br>
    On the other hand, my argument is: <strong>Nothing happens before the muon decays, therefore time is not change.</strong><br>
    <br>
    Perhaps that is a stalemate. (Apart from the fact that mainstream science has not identified your "something" and also does not define time as change. &lt;shrug&gt
    <br>
    <br>
    I'm not sure I understand how this experiment demonstrates time as a separate thing from events. Clearly other events were still happening. The observers' bodies were all continuing to age. Their wrist watches were still ticking. The muon's position relative to the Sun was still changing (by virtue of the experiment being conducted on Earth.) <br>
    <br>
    It seems that one and only one form of change was being avoided. You might as well show me an ice cube in a freezer, and point out to me that, because it's not melting and time is passing, that therefore time can progress absent change. <br>
    <br>
    My understanding has always been that, in three dimensions, a point is a "location", whereas in four dimensions, a point is an "event". A span of time would be a series of events, just as a span of distance is a series of locations. <br>
    <br>
    I don't know, but I guess it might be possible for an object to teleport across time, thereby arriving at an event without passing through any of the other events along the way. Just like some people imagine teleporting through space without passing through all the locations along the way. I don't know if that's possible or not. However, I think even if it were possible it wouldn't necessarily prove anything about the nature of time and/or space. <br>
    <br>
    The idea of a muon sitting there for a bit before it decays is very interesting, though. It would indicate that either there is no causality, or the event that caused the decay happened more than an instant before the result, and there were no events in between. But conventionally, one likes to assume that each event causes the one next to it, which causes the next one, which causes the next one in a continuous chain, with no gaps. <br>
    <br>
    Very interesting to think there might be a gap here.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    A time based hypothesis would yield identical predictions, though (and would therefore match observation just as perfectly.)
    I disagree. I don't see any way how time dilation can yield the same results, or even what such time dilation would be based on.

    Does a beam of light base its decision of how fast to move on the average mass of the entire path it *will* travel?
    Light always move at exactly c on null geodesics in space-time.

    If it changes speed based on the local region it's traveling through then it would speed up as it moved into an empty region of space, but then it would slow down again once it started getting close to Earth........ which would cancel the red/blue shifting effect entirely.
    Light cannot be accelerated, hence it cannot change speed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Is time related to mass?
    By One beer in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: June 24th, 2013, 09:25 AM
  2. Time travel/Destruction of mass
    By Bill Nye Time Traveller in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2012, 03:42 AM
  3. mass increase and time dilation
    By ray in forum Physics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: October 19th, 2011, 06:15 PM
  4. Can Black holes create space time?
    By kevinmorais in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 22nd, 2010, 04:35 AM
  5. Quasar jet stream data can Black holes create space time?
    By kevinmorais in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: November 20th, 2009, 08:59 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •