Notices
Results 1 to 94 of 94
Like Tree9Likes
  • 1 Post By Ascended
  • 1 Post By Mother/father
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By Ascended
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By Ascended
  • 1 Post By Mother/father
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: A philosophy of time

  1. #1 A philosophy of time 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    95
    Time is a somewhat nebulous concept, for although we can measure it with fantastic accuracy, can understand its effects (e.g. the passage of time) and can deal with it mathematically in a plethora of different ways, it is very difficult to pin down what Time is.

    In Minkowski’s four dimensional Space-time, length (or distance) is the magnitude of the space between two space-like points, while time is the magnitude of the separation of two time-like points.

    Let us consider then, how Time is measured. Like all measurements it is a comparison with another measure of the same kind: one that is set as a standard. So Time is measured by comparison with another time; usually from a ‘timekeeper’, or clock. That is a device that has a recurring process with a reliably repeated duration.

    In fact there is a clue to the essential nature of Time in that it can only be measured against another time. Time does not exist of itself; it is one of the outcomes of change, for every change has a duration. Therefore, we could say that the past is defined by the sum of all past change, that the present is the culmination of all past change and that the future will be defined by future changes.

    Is Time Absolute?

    Time is the heartbeat of the Universe. Every change, every process has a duration. That duration is absolute and fixed. It is how we measure that duration that can vary according to circumstance.

    The passage of time is the outcome of an infinite number of changes, from those whose duration is too small to be measured to those that have lasted since the Big Bang, as long as Time itself.

    "As long as time itself." Now that is an interesting concept.

    What does it mean? If we accept that Time started with the Big Bang as some aver, then time is the sum of all change since the Big Bang. But not a sequential sum, for an infinite number of changes are in process at any one instant, generating at a steady rate a background that is unaffected by any but Universal changes in conditions - so it may, for instance have progressed at a different rate in the first microseconds after the Big Bang.

    Time then could be described as the background of the Universe.

    It is against this background of ongoing change that we measure Time. We may use more local comparisons of different proportions, from the incredibly small to the gigantic yet all will be calibrated with regard to that steady ongoing background of change, of Time.

    As time exists only as the constant background, it is, essentially, unchanging i.e. Universal or Absolute Time.

    For when Time seems to quicken or to slow, it is only the duration of a change, of a process, that is dilating or contracting. More, or less, is happening within a specific time slice. Processes progress faster or slower against this Universal Time but they do not, cannot define it. No clock can measure time passing faster or slower, for it is only the rate of change of that clock that varies. Time, the background of change is not affected.

    Time is often described as another dimension but is this any more than a mathematical device for making calculations?

    Time as a Dimension

    If time has to be normal to all three space-like dimensions then surely it must be normal to all three simultaneously, in fact to any Space-like point.
    So how does that work?

    How can it work?

    Can we answer that without being able to imagine 4 dimensions?

    Well yes, I do believe we can! For if we examine what we mean by a dimension the one thing that is most apparent is that every point on that dimension has an existence at every point defined by the other dimensions. So adding another dimension to a single dimension forms a plane, add another and we have a solid, add time as a fourth and we have a solid that exist for a duration. Every individual point in that solid exists at every moment in time.

    A single point in time occurs at each and every space point. It has to, so that space point can, with the addition of that time point become an event. And events at that time will occur for all space points simultaneously - that has to be a fundamental property of a time dimension.

    So if we were to define a particular time point by a colour, for instance, than we would see the whole of space change colour as Time progressed and we would be able to refer to simultaneous events as all being the same colour on a progressing scale.

    Imagine then, if you will, the world-line of a particle moving from the origin of a set of axes. Every instant it has a different location that can be defined by the three spatial coordinates, but that point is also defined in time by the distance it has moved from the origin. The line connecting it to the origin then represents the distance it has travelled from the origin and the time that has passed since it left.

    So ct2 = x2 + y2 + z2

    From this it becomes evident that in Space-time synchronous events are synchronous wherever they are observed from.
    It is the whole of Space where every point has the same time. Where every Space-point has a synchronous event. Think about it. It has to be!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Time is only relative to change or motion when making comparisons.


    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Flow of time = Relative to speed
    Time = Space
    Lightspeed = Distance

    Time it TO much woven into our so called 3 dimensions. It eiter is a part of it because it's woven into it. Or it's not, and it's a differend dimension, where we allready inhabit.

    Supersize, and Microsize are also other dimensions, we live in between. So we live with 4 dimensions, 1 directly above and 1 directly below us.
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman ClaimingLight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    35
    Time is a fallible measurement to put life in human perspective. Without humans, there wouldn't be time. There would only be Now, as Before is only a memory and Later is only a postulation (even if it could be determined accurately).

    In example: momentum and/or acceleration is a fake attribute that we append to an object for the sake of simplicity and comprehension. It would be more accurate to label object as having X force in Y direction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Time is only relative to change or motion when making comparisons.
    That is a nice phrase, it sounds as if there is some deep meaning hidden within it - yet alas no clue as to what it might be ... :
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwolver View Post
    Flow of time = Relative to speed
    Time = Space
    Lightspeed = Distance

    Time it TO much woven into our so called 3 dimensions. It eiter is a part of it because it's woven into it. Or it's not, and it's a differend dimension, where we allready inhabit.

    Supersize, and Microsize are also other dimensions, we live in between. So we live with 4 dimensions, 1 directly above and 1 directly below us.
    ???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaimingLight View Post
    Time is a fallible measurement to put life in human perspective. Without humans, there wouldn't be time. There would only be Now, as Before is only a memory and Later is only a postulation (even if it could be determined accurately).

    In example: momentum and/or acceleration is a fake attribute that we append to an object for the sake of simplicity and comprehension. It would be more accurate to label object as having X force in Y direction.
    If time didn't exist then neither would change, for no change is instant, each has a duration.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by space at the centre View Post
    If time didn't exist then neither would change, for no change is instant, each has a duration.
    Can you prove this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    To Space at the center. I am a little confused at the way that this topic was approached, because my question would be. How can you know the speed of light when you say its hard to pin down. Is the so called speed of light measured with an instrument or the body. If you can answer any of those questions maybe we could define if the speed of light is dependant or indipendant. The scientist go about making statements about light when they don't have a clue about what it is. As for me when I make statements about somethiong I have to find evedence of said on my body. What use is it other wise if I cannot define its origin. Time is deturmind through this body there are no amount of mathematical formulars that can give any acruate results of time because it cannot be measured without a reference point. There are so many different angles. What about the speed of dark light? I hope it does not sound funny to your ear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman ClaimingLight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    35
    Yesterday I was on the forum talking about Quantum Mechanics. We got into a discussion about the probability of a quantum to exist in a given place with a given velocity but we had noted that it was impossible to accurately measure the physical location and velocity of a given quantum. Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    If time does exist as a independent entity and is more then a mere observational tool, it may be that we have trouble tracking the location of the quantum because it has the ability to move freely through the fourth dimension. Perhaps we don't see the quantum as being where it should be when it should be, as it is moving through time just as easily as it moves through space.

    Quote Originally Posted by space at the centre View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaimingLight View Post
    Time is a fallible measurement to put life in human perspective. Without humans, there wouldn't be time. There would only be Now, as Before is only a memory and Later is only a postulation (even if it could be determined accurately).

    In example: momentum and/or acceleration is a fake attribute that we append to an object for the sake of simplicity and comprehension. It would be more accurate to label object as having X force in Y direction.
    If time didn't exist then neither would change, for no change is instant, each has a duration.
    However- in response to this- I would argue a few things:
    *The idea of an 'instant' is contingent on the existence of time. This is sort of begging the question.
    *Supposing that I follow your thought process, I would encourage you to try moving your arm without moving your molecules. Despite the 'meta-change', a lot of 'micro-changes' occurred. A the nano level, everything is happening Now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by space at the centre View Post
    If time didn't exist then neither would change, for no change is instant, each has a duration.
    Can you prove this?
    Obviously not, that's why this is about the philosophy of time.
    But consider, any change is a process, moving from one state to another, are you opining that any change can be instant? For if one were to take any change down to its most basic, down to the level of quanta, then changes of state happen, and every change could be said to have a duration.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    To Space at the center. I am a little confused at the way that this topic was approached, because my question would be. How can you know the speed of light when you say its hard to pin down.
    I believe it was time that I said was hard to pin down. Not to measure it, but to say just what it is that is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaimingLight View Post
    Yesterday I was on the forum talking about Quantum Mechanics. We got into a discussion about the probability of a quantum to exist in a given place with a given velocity but we had noted that it was impossible to accurately measure the physical location and velocity of a given quantum. Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    If time does exist as a independent entity and is more then a mere observational tool, it may be that we have trouble tracking the location of the quantum because it has the ability to move freely through the fourth dimension. Perhaps we don't see the quantum as being where it should be when it should be, as it is moving through time just as easily as it moves through space.

    Quote Originally Posted by space at the centre View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaimingLight View Post
    Time is a fallible measurement to put life in human perspective. Without humans, there wouldn't be time. There would only be Now, as Before is only a memory and Later is only a postulation (even if it could be determined accurately).

    In example: momentum and/or acceleration is a fake attribute that we append to an object for the sake of simplicity and comprehension. It would be more accurate to label object as having X force in Y direction.
    Ha! you have me there, for I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about? What has moving my arm without moving my molecules have to do with anything?

    If time didn't exist then neither would change, for no change is instant, each has a duration.
    However- in response to this- I would argue a few things:
    *The idea of an 'instant' is contingent on the existence of time. This is sort of begging the question.
    *Supposing that I follow your thought process, I would encourage you to try moving your arm without moving your molecules. Despite the 'meta-change', a lot of 'micro-changes' occurred. A the nano level, everything is happening Now.
    Ha! Yo have me there! For I have no idea what you are on about! What has moving my arm without moving my molecules to do with anything?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Space at the centre. My drift is not so much wether we use time or light measurements, its really about how we do that. If we can find one parameter, we can find the other. But everything is moving, all we have to work with is an angle of what is moving very fast. If the speed of the constant change of the angle we are measuring, could be identified, then we could use that result as a derivative and proceed to varify what ever momentum results we could gather. To be very honest I do not think all this quantum stuff is real, or real knowledge for that matter, if one cannot grasp the spirit concept. There is a spiritual essence embeded into all study of phenomena. Most scientist neglect the spiritual side of the equation and so miss the center. I can talk all day about measurements but it must be related to my being in some way or it cannot be real experience when matter appears in our form.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman ClaimingLight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by space at the centre View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaimingLight View Post
    Yesterday I was on the forum talking about Quantum Mechanics. We got into a discussion about the probability of a quantum to exist in a given place with a given velocity but we had noted that it was impossible to accurately measure the physical location and velocity of a given quantum. Uncertainty principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    If time does exist as a independent entity and is more then a mere observational tool, it may be that we have trouble tracking the location of the quantum because it has the ability to move freely through the fourth dimension. Perhaps we don't see the quantum as being where it should be when it should be, as it is moving through time just as easily as it moves through space.

    Quote Originally Posted by space at the centre View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaimingLight View Post
    Time is a fallible measurement to put life in human perspective. Without humans, there wouldn't be time. There would only be Now, as Before is only a memory and Later is only a postulation (even if it could be determined accurately).

    In example: momentum and/or acceleration is a fake attribute that we append to an object for the sake of simplicity and comprehension. It would be more accurate to label object as having X force in Y direction.
    Ha! you have me there, for I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about? What has moving my arm without moving my molecules have to do with anything?

    If time didn't exist then neither would change, for no change is instant, each has a duration.
    However- in response to this- I would argue a few things:
    *The idea of an 'instant' is contingent on the existence of time. This is sort of begging the question.
    *Supposing that I follow your thought process, I would encourage you to try moving your arm without moving your molecules. Despite the 'meta-change', a lot of 'micro-changes' occurred. A the nano level, everything is happening Now.
    Ha! Yo have me there! For I have no idea what you are on about! What has moving my arm without moving my molecules to do with anything?
    Here's what I mean:

    Say that in the whole universe, there is only one thing. We'll say that it's a marble. There are no stars, no gases, no planets. Only a marble and a black void.
    It's moving through space at an incredibly fast rate... but without anything else to measure it against, it's impossible to prove- we can only measure the speed of one thing against something that is 'totally still'.

    So here's the question: without the ability to measure speed- does speed even exist at all? How can we say that something is "fast" when it isn't moving toward anything or away from anything.

    Time itself is much the same. Say the marble suddenly stopped existing. You might say that it had a certain duration of existence. But when you're the only thing in the universe, it's more like the universe stopped existing. So again- you need to have something to compare it to, or any answer is meaningless.

    Time and speed are comparative numbers only. They aren't real things. They are only there to make math and understanding easier for us. When someone says 'speed' what they mean is 'X force in Y direction, mitigated by Z counterforce in -Y direction'. Time, while incredibly useful as a tool, is just a way of predicting the results of speed.

    So- while that answer is complex, the thing that I recommend taking away from it is straightforward. Don't look into it too much. There isn't another dimension in your ruler or in your speedometer. Don't look for another dimension in your alarm clock.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman ClaimingLight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Space at the centre. My drift is not so much wether we use time or light measurements, its really about how we do that. If we can find one parameter, we can find the other. But everything is moving, all we have to work with is an angle of what is moving very fast. If the speed of the constant change of the angle we are measuring, could be identified, then we could use that result as a derivative and proceed to varify what ever momentum results we could gather. To be very honest I do not think all this quantum stuff is real, or real knowledge for that matter, if one cannot grasp the spirit concept. There is a spiritual essence embeded into all study of phenomena. Most scientist neglect the spiritual side of the equation and so miss the center. I can talk all day about measurements but it must be related to my being in some way or it cannot be real experience when matter appears in our form.
    M/F: I'm a spiritual kind of guy myself. There are a great many conversations that I could have which don't belong in the scientific realm at all. I've found, more then anything, that these experiences are intimately personal and incredibly difficult to translate to others. Science works as a good medium to explain complex ideas about reality to others. Of course, some men have taken the concepts far too literally and try to 'discover' universal concepts through convoluted paradoxical bullshit. Banach
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by space at the centre View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by space at the centre View Post
    If time didn't exist then neither would change, for no change is instant, each has a duration.
    Can you prove this?
    Obviously not, that's why this is about the philosophy of time.
    But consider, any change is a process, moving from one state to another, are you opining that any change can be instant? For if one were to take any change down to its most basic, down to the level of quanta, then changes of state happen, and every change could be said to have a duration.
    On the contrary: at quantum level it seems, to my undersanding, that things do just happen. One moment an electron is in this orbital, next it is in that orbital. The change has no measurable duration. Frankly, I don't know, but I'm not sure that you do either, so I wondered if you were expressing a fact, or an opinion. I am happy that we have now established that it is an opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    How can you know the speed of light when you say its hard to pin down. Is the so called speed of light measured with an instrument or the body.
    The speed of light is not hard to pin down, it is measured to great accuracy. It is currently measured to a few parts in a billion. Nowadays, the speed of light is defined to be 299,792,458 m/s and further measurements are just refine the definition of the metre derived from this.

    The scientist go about making statements about light when they don't have a clue about what it is.
    I think you might be talking about yourself, rather than "scientists".
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    "I think you might be talking about yourself, rather than "scientists".
    Strange, you could be right, I too don't have a clue but I suspect you do. Can you tell me if light is a totality of itself or is it connected to a spectrum. if it is a spectrum what part of it are we measuring? if not, how can you know the nature or speed of such a totality?. What would the speed of light be related to if not through the human body? I think that there is a question of the totality or wholeness of a thing or phenomena. Scientist seem to be measuring parts of the whole and is confused at what is stable, or unstable if there is such a thing . What about the harmonics of light as in music harmonics. Is there a brighter light than white light? these are all questions that science has not been able to answer as yet. Please explain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    "I think you might be talking about yourself, rather than "scientists".
    Strange, you could be right, I too don't have a clue but I suspect you do. Can you tell me if light is a totality of itself or is it connected to a spectrum. if it is a spectrum what part of it are we measuring? if not, how can you know the nature or speed of such a totality?. What would the speed of light be related to if not through the human body? I think that there is a question of the totality or wholeness of a thing or phenomena. Scientist seem to be measuring parts of the whole and is confused at what is stable, or unstable if there is such a thing . What about the harmonics of light as in music harmonics. Is there a brighter light than white light? these are all questions that science has not been able to answer as yet. Please explain.
    You are displaying a considerable level of ignorance. Are you willing to learn? Are you open minded enough to learn? Or do you wish to remain embedded in a sea of vague verbiage that sounds elegant until you diseect it for meaning?

    Can you tell me if light is a totality of itself or is it connected to a spectrum.
    What do you mean by totality? Light is a phenomenom that at times seems to behave as a wave and at other times as a particles. Its behaviour in both modes is known in great detail. I have no idea what a totality would be in relation to light. Perhaps you will explain. Light comes in various frequencies and wavelengths. We see these as a spectrum of colours, so - yes - light is connected to a spectrum.

    if it is a spectrum what part of it are we measuring?
    We can measure its wavelength, its frequency, its intensity. We can measure every part and aspect of the spectrum that has a measurable variable associated with it.

    if not, how can you know the nature or speed of such a totality?.
    By measuring how long it takes light to get from A to B. It is technically challenging, but theoretically simple and has been done by various methods thousands of times. The fact that you are unware of this is a reflection on you, not on science's ability to know the speed of light.


    What would the speed of light be related to if not through the human body?
    Excuse my crudity but it has **** all to do with the human body. I tell my students that there are no dumb questions. Sometimes, someone challenges that conviction as you have done here. The speed of light is related to how long it takes to travel between two points. do you understand this? do you see why the human body has nothing whatsoever to do with the speed of light?

    Scientist seem to be measuring parts of the whole and is confused at what is stable, or unstable if there is such a thing
    Give an example of where you think this confusion exists. At present the confusion seems to coming entirely from you.


    Is there a brighter light than white light?
    The whiteness of light is independent of its brightness.

    these are all questions that science has not been able to answer as yet. Please explain.
    No. these are all quesitons that science has answered or that are meaningless. I repeat, your current iognorance is your problem, not that of science. Are you ready to take the steps to remove that ignorance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by space at the centre View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Time is only relative to change or motion when making comparisons.
    That is a nice phrase, it sounds as if there is some deep meaning hidden within it - yet alas no clue as to what it might be ... :
    What it means is time by it's self is irrelevant, it is only useful when comparing events, it is just a concept that we can use for comparison. Time by it's self has no point of reference so becomes meaningless. We could think any number of other ways to measure change and motion without need for time. Linear time is just our way of assigning a value to any given cause and effect.
    ClaimingLight likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    "Can you tell me if light is a totality of itself or is it connected to a spectrum.
    When we talk about light in the context of "the speed of light" or similar, we are referring to all electromagnetic radiation. In other contexts, it can just refer to the visible range.

    What would the speed of light be related to if not through the human body?
    I don't really understand that. The speed of light is far too fast for us to perceive directly. It is measured in various ways but basically as the time it takes for the light to get from one place to another. I'm not sure what the human body has to do with it.

    Is there a brighter light than white light?
    The "whiteness" of light has nothing to do with "brightness". White light is light with a (roughly) mixture of frequencies that we percieve as white; roughly, an equal energy at each frequency. Brightness is determined by the intensity or energy level. You can have a bright red, white or green light.

    these are all questions that science has not been able to answer as yet.
    I'm afraid several didn't make much sense to me. But feel free to ask again if you think I have missed something important.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Strange, I know I twist things around sometimes but by doing so I notice I always get a new angle to look at things and when I question myself and use all the angles available to me. When my thoughts are exhausted I turn to people like yourself and ask my questions. Sometime you don't understand my question because I come from a different culture. Sometime some people take my questions wrongly, I guess that is to be expected. However I am mostly gratefull because I do pick up information.

    What would the speed of light be related to if not through the human body?
    I see myself as the centerpoint of my surroundings. When I am the center point everything is connected to me. Light touches me from this center point so that all I presieve is related to me. Where ever light starts it would take a certain time to reach me. What I am asking, is the point of reference measured from the sourse of light to another point? If there are different light sources that makes up the total light source, how can there be an exact measuremt of light. I am trying to use the same analogy as with time. Time is measured on the human mind, is it the same with light?.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman ClaimingLight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    What I am asking, is the point of reference measured from the sourse of light to another point? If there are different light sources that makes up the total light source, how can there be an exact measuremt of light. I am trying to use the same analogy as with time. Time is measured on the human mind, is it the same with light?.
    I think I have an idea of what you're asking. Here's my attempt to understand it. You ask: "As I'm walking down the street, I see two light sources at the same time. But one of them is further away then the other. How is it that I can see both at the same time if the light from one object has to travel further then the light from the other?"

    The answer to that is: you don't see them at the same time. Each new piece of information that you see coming from the closer light source is information that you're getting sooner then the info for the light that is further away.

    Think of light as you would think of a waterfall. If you put your hand in the waterfall, your hand gets wet- but the water was streaming down before you put your hand in- so any water that passes will never touch your hand. However, any water that has yet to touch your hand (but will) is already on its way to you and will touch you in time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    What would the speed of light be related to if not through the human body?
    I see myself as the centerpoint of my surroundings. When I am the center point everything is connected to me. Light touches me from this center point so that all I presieve is related to me. Where ever light starts it would take a certain time to reach me. What I am asking, is the point of reference measured from the sourse of light to another point? If there are different light sources that makes up the total light source, how can there be an exact measuremt of light. I am trying to use the same analogy as with time. Time is measured on the human mind, is it the same with light?.
    It is similar to measuring the speed of anything else. If you want to know how fast a car is going, you might mark two points on the road, measure the distance between them and then time how long it takes a car to pass between them. The human body doesn't come into it.

    Measuring the speed of light is similar. You measure the time it takes to go from point A to point B a known distance apart. The human body doesn't come into it.

    It is a little more complicated with light because it is so fast you need either very long distance or to be able to measure very short times. The first measurements were made using the timing of the orbits of the moons of Jupiter (which is a very great distance). The human body doesn't come into it.

    Various other methods have been used since then. (The human body doesn't come into them, either.)

    You can also use indirect methods. For example, you can measure two factors that affect the way magnetic and electric fields work (permeability and permittivity) and from these work out the speed of light. This is all based on work done by Faraday and Maxwell in the 19th century.

    Alternatively, you can measure the frequency and wavelength and work out the velocity from this. Amazingly, you can do this at home with marshmallows and a microwave oven: Finding the Speed of Light with

    If you eat the marshmallows afterwards, then this brings it all back to your body. Happy?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Claminglight, you have come very close to what I am asking. If light is going out from the source, does it hit each body at the same speed? It is said light behaves like a particle at times. When I see it as a particle logics wants to make me think that all the particles must be traveling at the same speed. Does what I am saying make any sense to you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Claminglight, you have come very close to what I am asking. If light is going out from the source, does it hit each body at the same speed? It is said light behaves like a particle at times. When I see it as a particle logics wants to make me think that all the particles must be traveling at the same speed. Does that make any sense?
    All light from all sources travels at the same speed. The odd thing about light is that the speed is always the same. If you are stationary relative to the source you will measure the same speed of light (c) as someone moving rapidly towards or away from the source.

    Light behaves in some ways as a particle and in some ways as a wave. But is is important not to try and use your intuitive notions of these everyday concepts to understand how it behaves. Because it is not a particle or a wave; it is a "thing" (a photon, a ding an sich) that just happens to have some characteristics we normally associate with these things.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Strange, my connection to light as a human is that I am the observer, no I, no perception of light, no I, no perception of time, I am the first know in the equation of maths. All my measuring conceps go out from me. If I am not the source then what ever comes to me reflects on my being in the material world. If I see two lights one brighter than the other I cannot definatively say what is the source of those two lights. What I can difinitively say from my angle is that light reflects on me. Can we actually know what part of light we are measuring, could it be the reflection from one point to the next? I am having a hard time with just one of anything. I can only see the whole I cannot express myself in it, I can only do that in the division of myself. I do like your approach to my questions though. this is precisly what I want to know about people and thier angle of perseption. Why are you able to pick up my drift when words get in the way and others cannot?.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    John, I seemed to have upset you about science not being able to prove a lot of what they are saying, that is absolutly not my intention. I should have been a bit more reserved in my opionions. In one sense I am challenging the status quo of science, on the other hand I am using the said science to do my comparisions to what I have discovered. And yes I want to learn, but I don't want to silently learn. I want to ask questions and turn them around to make sense and nonsense. I want to challenge my mind and find out things from comparisons.

    There is one thing I would like to say though, I know you are a teacher, and so am I. There are so many things to learn from students as you will know. I do not think it is good to think one cannot learn something from someone who appears to be talking rubish, for sometimes there is esoteric knowledge embeded in the seemingly ignorance of others. I am really challenging you for the benifit of us both, I hope you are doing the same. You can trust I am listening to you very carefully.


    You say the human being has nothing to do with the speed of light, my take on that is I am the observer, I am the center point of my gravity, I perceive fast or slow, I am the first know in any equation. If I cannot identify the sourse of light all I can say about it is that it reflects on me. So what am I really measuring when I say the speed of light. Where is the zero point of that measurement. If the spectrum starts at 0 nano meter what is the range of the whole spectrum? Science did say everything is connected, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Calminglight, What you are saying is making a lot of sense to me. The basis of any measurement starts with the human. No human no time. It is used as a transitional tool. Wow, I am surprised no one is calling you ignorant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Strange, my connection to light as a human is that I am the observer, no I, no perception of light, no I, no perception of time
    No perception by you, maybe. Light and time existed before you were born and will continue afterwards. Light and time existed before humans existed and will continue afterwards. It seems a little arrogant to assume that these things only exists because of you.

    If I see two lights one brighter than the other I cannot definatively say what is the source of those two lights.
    I don't see why not. I have two lamps in my room, one is brighter than the other. What is the problem? I look at one I see the light from it. I look at the other, I see the light from it.

    I am having a hard time with just one of anything.
    You appear to have a problem thinking clearly about anything.

    Why are you able to pick up my drift when words get in the way and others cannot?.
    If I have done, it was probably a lucky guess.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    There is one thing I would like to say though, I know you are a teacher, and so am I.
    That is truly scary. I feel really sorry for your students having to put up with someone who talks such utter nonsense. And to make it worse, does it in an incomprehensible way.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    John, I seemed to have upset you about science not being able to prove a lot of what they are saying, that is absolutly not my intention.?
    No, you have upset me by talking nonsense. Please don't feed me that bullshit about looking at things from a different perspective and being challenging in the apparently nonsensical way you phrase questions. You are talking nonsense. You are ignoring the findings of centuries of research. You are willfully self focused. You abuse the English language with your use of words out of context in an apparent attempt to give meaning where none exists. That is what has upset me.

    In one sense I am challenging the status quo of science,
    You have demonstrated, beyond doubt, that you do not understand either the findings of science, or the methodology of science. As such you have no right and no authority to challanege its status quo.

    I want to ask questions and turn them around to make sense and nonsense.
    That is a damnably unproductive approach. All you have suceeded in doing is giving the appearance of a deluded fool. I recommend you try a different strategy.

    So what am I really measuring when I say the speed of light.
    As has been explained to you multiple times you measure a distance and you measure a time light takes to travel that distance. Thus, you have the speed of light. The experiment has been done many, many times in many different ways and the results are consistent. There is no mystery here other than how you can possibly find the concept difficult.

    If the spectrum starts at 0 nano meter what is the range of the whole spectrum?
    The spectrum does not have units of length. Why do you think it has?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553

    "Strange, my connection to light as a human is that I am the observer, no I, no perception of light, no I, no perception of time"

    Strange, I fing you very strange.
    No perception by you, maybe. Light and time existed before you were born and will continue afterwards. Light and time existed before humans existed and will continue afterwards. It seems a little arrogant to assume that these things only exists because of you.

    So my extra ordinary learned friend, you have been dead before and still preceived light and time? is that what science taught you?

    "If I see two lights one brighter than the other I cannot definatively say what is the source of those two lights."
    If you cannot identify the sourse of the light you are seeing how, would you know if it is a reflection or not, is that so hard to see. For a super teacher like your self that has got to be easy to answer, just try.

    "I am having a hard time with just one of anything."
    I have a problem with one of anything because if I just listened to you alone, I would be useless to myself as you are.

    "Why are you able to pick up my drift when words get in the way and others cannot?. "
    I guess you have to do what you have to do, so keep on guessing

    "There is one thing I would like to say though, I know you are a teacher, and so am I."
    What is more scary is that I was taught in your schools from people like your self and was given a degree in electronics with distinction. Sadly I could not pass it on to the students as you gave it to me because they were loosing it untill I explained that all that science had told them was done without expierence. They were learning out of books and that is not enough. I am seeing by your behaviour that you did not teach science but how to insult people you do not know. it seems when your brain gets overloaded you panic and go into confusion and insults. You may be a good teacher but a bad influence on the public when you cannot control your self. My friend you cannot comprehend me you are too closed, you cannot answer my questions because if you could you would not be so angry at your self. My question to you , have you ever known your self dead, or are you dead now and still experienceing time?

    "If the spectrum starts at 0 nano meter what is the range of the whole spectrum?"
    What unit did you use to measure the speed of light, and does light have a wavelength? If you cannot understand that then use frequency, what frequency did you use to measure with. If that is still to difficult please let me know what unit you used.

    "In one sense I am challenging the status quo of science,"

    You have demonstrated, beyond doubt, that you do not understand either the findings of science, or the methodology of science. As such you have no right and no authority to challanege its status quo.

    My,my now this I find arrogant "one world order stuff" Too much of you guys around stopping progress.

    Strange, I really wanted to discuss with someone that is not afraid of themself. I find you are very unhappy and I cannot take your mind to my questions. I would have loved you to address them in a human fashion but I have to be asking myself what am I speaking to, it sounds like I have contacted a robot. We have totally gone away from meaningful dialog.
    warthog213 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    I find you are very unhappy and I cannot take your mind to my questions.
    I am very happy. I enjoy discussing science with people who are interested in sharing information or who want to learn.

    People who write meaningless nonsense and think they are being clever ... not so much. Bye.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    you have been dead before and still preceived light and time? is that what science taught you?
    No.

    If you cannot identify the sourse of the light you are seeing
    Of course he can. Why would he not be able to identify the source of light in a room with two lamps ? Can you give us a good reason ?

    What unit did you use to measure the speed of light
    He used meters and seconds. But he could just as well have used fathoms and moon cycles, it is irrelevant. The point is that the speed is the same for all observers.

    Too much of you guys around stopping progress.
    Do you mean progress towards the light...?
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Mother/father: This is a science forum. You have demonstrated, by your posts within this forum, that you are clearly ignorant of science. The forum welcomes individuals who are ignorant and wish to learn. The forum does not welcome individuals who are ignorant, but deluded as to their expertise and who persistently post nonsense. If you wish to continue your membership a major change in your attitude and your posts will be required. This is in your hands. Do not respond to this mod note in this thread. If you have an issue with this, pm me or another mod or admin directly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Marcus Hanke, Your name sounds like a German name, are you? I studied electronics in West Germany in the city of Cologne.

    I seemed to have caused an uproar in the forum because of the way I pose my questions, and also because I mentioned that scientist do not have a clue as to some of the information we are fed. However I should have stated that it is not all scientists that are wrong, but a lot of them especially on certain topics. As you can appreciate there are lots of questions out there and I do believe that there should be a little room for question to be posed acording to the thinkers view. It might be that some of us are not equiped to pose the questions in scientific language, never the less it would be nice if some of the learned ones could try to fit themselves into a better fraim to pick up on what the novis is asking. I am not afraid of ignorance, I am afraid of not being able to express it knowing that by doing so is the only way I can move on and remove the ignorance.
    Ideas are free, and I think science should make room for other ideas. The world and different cultures see things in different ways. I visit the forum to gather ideas no matter from where they come. However I feel thretned by the way my questions are answered and the way in which some of the scientist take offence to my questions. If the forum is oppened to only members of the scientists clan then I can take the insults and fear mongering to throw me off when I ask certain questions. I do not know of anyone who ask meaningless questions for them, but I do know of individuals who cannot understand the questions and therefore cannot give the answers.

    My original question was centered at the speed of light. If one cannot identify the sourse of light, how can we know what the speed of light really is? What I see could be a reflection. The measurement of any phenomena must have a connection to the human being because the human is the first known of any equation.

    I was told that the measurement of light does not have anything to do with humans, because light and time was present before humans.

    I questioned this and said, no I, no time, no I, no light. I further asked if anyone had died and experienced light, or time?
    I was told my questions are stupid and I am eluding myself, I am an idiot and such things. What is your take on my questions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Marcus Hanke, Your name sounds like a German name, are you?
    I would appreciate if you could at least make the effort to spell my name correctly, that is basic courtesy. My nationality is completely irrelevant to the subject of this discussion, and I do not wish to make that information public.

    If one cannot identify the sourse of light
    One can always identify the source of light.

    What I see could be a reflection
    So what ? In that case the reflection ( mirror, surface etc ) is the source of light. What does that have to do with its speed ?

    What is your take on my questions?
    My take is that you should be clearer on what exactly it is you are after. This is a science forum, we are not here to solve puzzles and practice telepathy - ask a clear question and you will receive a clear answer.
    Light speed measurement has nothing to do with humans. A blind bat could devise an experiment to measure the propagation speed of EM waves, and would get the same speed of light as result.
    No one here has died, otherwise we wouldn't be sitting on our PCs typing replies to you ! And what does that even have to do with the speed of light ?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by space at the centre View Post
    Time is a somewhat nebulous concept, for although we can measure it with fantastic accuracy, can understand its effects (e.g. the passage of time) and can deal with it mathematically in a plethora of different ways, it is very difficult to pin down what Time is.

    In Minkowski’s four dimensional Space-time, length (or distance) is the magnitude of the space between two space-like points, while time is the magnitude of the separation of two time-like points.

    Let us consider then, how Time is measured. Like all measurements it is a comparison with another measure of the same kind: one that is set as a standard. So Time is measured by comparison with another time; usually from a ‘timekeeper’, or clock. That is a device that has a recurring process with a reliably repeated duration.

    In fact there is a clue to the essential nature of Time in that it can only be measured against another time. Time does not exist of itself; it is one of the outcomes of change, for every change has a duration. Therefore, we could say that the past is defined by the sum of all past change, that the present is the culmination of all past change and that the future will be defined by future changes.

    Is Time Absolute?

    Time is the heartbeat of the Universe. Every change, every process has a duration. That duration is absolute and fixed. It is how we measure that duration that can vary according to circumstance.

    The passage of time is the outcome of an infinite number of changes, from those whose duration is too small to be measured to those that have lasted since the Big Bang, as long as Time itself.

    "As long as time itself." Now that is an interesting concept.

    What does it mean? If we accept that Time started with the Big Bang as some aver, then time is the sum of all change since the Big Bang. But not a sequential sum, for an infinite number of changes are in process at any one instant, generating at a steady rate a background that is unaffected by any but Universal changes in conditions - so it may, for instance have progressed at a different rate in the first microseconds after the Big Bang.

    Time then could be described as the background of the Universe.

    It is against this background of ongoing change that we measure Time. We may use more local comparisons of different proportions, from the incredibly small to the gigantic yet all will be calibrated with regard to that steady ongoing background of change, of Time.

    As time exists only as the constant background, it is, essentially, unchanging i.e. Universal or Absolute Time.

    For when Time seems to quicken or to slow, it is only the duration of a change, of a process, that is dilating or contracting. More, or less, is happening within a specific time slice. Processes progress faster or slower against this Universal Time but they do not, cannot define it. No clock can measure time passing faster or slower, for it is only the rate of change of that clock that varies. Time, the background of change is not affected.

    Time is often described as another dimension but is this any more than a mathematical device for making calculations?

    Time as a Dimension

    If time has to be normal to all three space-like dimensions then surely it must be normal to all three simultaneously, in fact to any Space-like point.
    So how does that work?

    How can it work?

    Can we answer that without being able to imagine 4 dimensions?

    Well yes, I do believe we can! For if we examine what we mean by a dimension the one thing that is most apparent is that every point on that dimension has an existence at every point defined by the other dimensions. So adding another dimension to a single dimension forms a plane, add another and we have a solid, add time as a fourth and we have a solid that exist for a duration. Every individual point in that solid exists at every moment in time.

    A single point in time occurs at each and every space point. It has to, so that space point can, with the addition of that time point become an event. And events at that time will occur for all space points simultaneously - that has to be a fundamental property of a time dimension.

    So if we were to define a particular time point by a colour, for instance, than we would see the whole of space change colour as Time progressed and we would be able to refer to simultaneous events as all being the same colour on a progressing scale.

    Imagine then, if you will, the world-line of a particle moving from the origin of a set of axes. Every instant it has a different location that can be defined by the three spatial coordinates, but that point is also defined in time by the distance it has moved from the origin. The line connecting it to the origin then represents the distance it has travelled from the origin and the time that has passed since it left.

    So ct2 = x2 + y2 + z2

    From this it becomes evident that in Space-time synchronous events are synchronous wherever they are observed from.
    It is the whole of Space where every point has the same time. Where every Space-point has a synchronous event. Think about it. It has to be!

    I take issue with the whole idea of time as a dimension, I still think time is a useful way of measuring cause and effect for comparisons. Time does not have the requirements to be an actual dimension and it only even comes into existance through change or motion. Also I have issue with the lack of limitations that potentialy has, yet our understanding of the 3 dimensions we curently use have clear limitations. The term 'time' in it's self is open to interpretation I mean are we talking all types of time or just linear time moving forward?

    All three of the dimensions we currently understand have one thing in common they all relate to stationary objects, and time is the complete opposite.
    I don't think we should go down the extra dimensional classificational route with time.
    ClaimingLight likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by space at the centre View Post
    Time is a somewhat nebulous concept, for although we can measure it with fantastic accuracy, can understand its effects (e.g. the passage of time) and can deal with it mathematically in a plethora of different ways, it is very difficult to pin down what Time is.

    In Minkowski’s four dimensional Space-time, length (or distance) is the magnitude of the space between two space-like points, while time is the magnitude of the separation of two time-like points.

    Let us consider then, how Time is measured. Like all measurements it is a comparison with another measure of the same kind: one that is set as a standard. So Time is measured by comparison with another time; usually from a ‘timekeeper’, or clock. That is a device that has a recurring process with a reliably repeated duration.

    In fact there is a clue to the essential nature of Time in that it can only be measured against another time. Time does not exist of itself; it is one of the outcomes of change, for every change has a duration. Therefore, we could say that the past is defined by the sum of all past change, that the present is the culmination of all past change and that the future will be defined by future changes.

    Is Time Absolute?

    Time is the heartbeat of the Universe. Every change, every process has a duration. That duration is absolute and fixed. It is how we measure that duration that can vary according to circumstance.

    The passage of time is the outcome of an infinite number of changes, from those whose duration is too small to be measured to those that have lasted since the Big Bang, as long as Time itself.

    "As long as time itself." Now that is an interesting concept.

    What does it mean? If we accept that Time started with the Big Bang as some aver, then time is the sum of all change since the Big Bang. But not a sequential sum, for an infinite number of changes are in process at any one instant, generating at a steady rate a background that is unaffected by any but Universal changes in conditions - so it may, for instance have progressed at a different rate in the first microseconds after the Big Bang.

    Time then could be described as the background of the Universe.

    It is against this background of ongoing change that we measure Time. We may use more local comparisons of different proportions, from the incredibly small to the gigantic yet all will be calibrated with regard to that steady ongoing background of change, of Time.

    As time exists only as the constant background, it is, essentially, unchanging i.e. Universal or Absolute Time.

    For when Time seems to quicken or to slow, it is only the duration of a change, of a process, that is dilating or contracting. More, or less, is happening within a specific time slice. Processes progress faster or slower against this Universal Time but they do not, cannot define it. No clock can measure time passing faster or slower, for it is only the rate of change of that clock that varies. Time, the background of change is not affected.

    Time is often described as another dimension but is this any more than a mathematical device for making calculations?

    Time as a Dimension

    If time has to be normal to all three space-like dimensions then surely it must be normal to all three simultaneously, in fact to any Space-like point.
    So how does that work?

    How can it work?

    Can we answer that without being able to imagine 4 dimensions?

    Well yes, I do believe we can! For if we examine what we mean by a dimension the one thing that is most apparent is that every point on that dimension has an existence at every point defined by the other dimensions. So adding another dimension to a single dimension forms a plane, add another and we have a solid, add time as a fourth and we have a solid that exist for a duration. Every individual point in that solid exists at every moment in time.

    A single point in time occurs at each and every space point. It has to, so that space point can, with the addition of that time point become an event. And events at that time will occur for all space points simultaneously - that has to be a fundamental property of a time dimension.

    So if we were to define a particular time point by a colour, for instance, than we would see the whole of space change colour as Time progressed and we would be able to refer to simultaneous events as all being the same colour on a progressing scale.

    Imagine then, if you will, the world-line of a particle moving from the origin of a set of axes. Every instant it has a different location that can be defined by the three spatial coordinates, but that point is also defined in time by the distance it has moved from the origin. The line connecting it to the origin then represents the distance it has travelled from the origin and the time that has passed since it left.

    So ct2 = x2 + y2 + z2

    From this it becomes evident that in Space-time synchronous events are synchronous wherever they are observed from.
    It is the whole of Space where every point has the same time. Where every Space-point has a synchronous event. Think about it. It has to be!

    I take issue with the whole idea of time as a dimension, I still think time is a useful way of measuring cause and effect for comparisons. Time does not have the requirements to be an actual dimension and it only even comes into existance through change or motion. Also I have issue with the lack of limitations that potentialy has, yet our understanding of the 3 dimensions we curently use have clear limitations. The term 'time' in it's self is open to interpretation I mean are we talking all types of time or just linear time moving forward?

    All three of the dimensions we currently understand have one thing in common they all relate to stationary objects, and time is the complete opposite.
    I don't think we should go down the extra dimensional classificational route with time.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    I take issue with the whole idea of time as a dimension, I still think time is a useful way of measuring cause and effect for comparisons. Time does not have the requirements to be an actual dimension and it only even comes into existance through change or motion. Also I have issue with the lack of limitations that potentialy has, yet our understanding of the 3 dimensions we curently use have clear limitations. The term 'time' in it's self is open to interpretation I mean are we talking all types of time or just linear time moving forward?

    All three of the dimensions we currently understand have one thing in common they all relate to stationary objects, and time is the complete opposite.
    I don't think we should go down the extra dimensional classificational route with time.
    Imagine you want to meet up with someone. What information do you need to give each other ? You need to know where ( x,y,z), but also when ( t ) the meeting takes place. The event "meeting" thus needs four coordinates to be uniquely determined : x,y,z,t, and is therefore 4-dimensional.
    Time is simply a coordinate one needs to give to uniquely identify a point in our space-time continuum.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    My original question was centered at the speed of light. If one cannot identify the sourse of light, how can we know what the speed of light really is?
    The light came from the object we see. That is the source. Look at the sun? That is the source. You see a tree? That is the source.

    I questioned this and said, no I, no time, no I, no light.
    Ask your parents. I'm fairly sure the universe was not dark and static before you were born.

    This sort of empty solipsism is what passes for philosophy amongst stoned 16 year olds: "Maybe the universe was created 5 minutes ago and made to look 13 billion years old." <snigger> "Maybe we are all just characters in someone else's dream" <giggle> "Maybe light and time didn't exist until the first human opened their eyes" <chortle> "Gosh. Aren't we clever. Pass that spliff."

    I assume you think John Lennon's Imagine(1) is a great work of art as well.

    (1) Officially the worst pop song ever written.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    I take issue with the whole idea of time as a dimension, I still think time is a useful way of measuring cause and effect for comparisons. Time does not have the requirements to be an actual dimension and it only even comes into existance through change or motion. Also I have issue with the lack of limitations that potentialy has, yet our understanding of the 3 dimensions we curently use have clear limitations. The term 'time' in it's self is open to interpretation I mean are we talking all types of time or just linear time moving forward?

    All three of the dimensions we currently understand have one thing in common they all relate to stationary objects, and time is the complete opposite.
    I don't think we should go down the extra dimensional classificational route with time.
    Imagine you want to meet up with someone. What information do you need to give each other ? You need to know where ( x,y,z), but also when ( t ) the meeting takes place. The event "meeting" thus needs four coordinates to be uniquely determined : x,y,z,t, and is therefore 4-dimensional.
    Time is simply a coordinate one needs to give to uniquely identify a point in our space-time continuum.
    Whilst I certainly agree that the concept of 4th dimensional space time for assigning coordinates is useful and all very well and good purely as a concept it still does not to me justify actual recognition status for time as a true dimension.

    I understand your example and time would certainly make the meeting easier, but it is not essential. A meeting could still be arranged with 2 sets of x,y,z coordinates using intercept trajectories. This would mean that somewhere between the 2 sets of coordinates the meeting would still occur, as to exactly where would be determined by the velocity that each person would be traveling at. But it still shows, at least in this instance, the lack of a time coordinate would not always preclude achieving the required meeting.
    ClaimingLight likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    1 Ugly MoFo warthog213's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    147
    Time is a constant, meaning it never stops or slows down for anyone or anything. You may be able to speed up with time and move at a speed which halts it but that is you and not time itself. Hey I loved reading your post it is awesome and truely had some thought behind it. Time would only start for said objects such the big bang you had mentioned . But time existed before that and even after all of that has come to pass.
    Quote Originally Posted by space at the centre View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Time is only relative to change or motion when making comparisons.
    That is a nice phrase, it sounds as if there is some deep meaning hidden within it - yet alas no clue as to what it might be ... :
    And also I believe that I've brought up some great points as to which dimention we exist in. We can give 3 dimentions for object in our universe and I tend to say that there may be a 4th or even a 5th and possibly even a 6th dimention in the fact that an object will last a length of time and what it's mass may be (indicating its shape and content perhaps). Of coarse it would pseudoscience to consider that may be more dimentions to our universe.
    Last edited by warthog213; June 16th, 2012 at 11:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Marcus Hanke, Your name sounds like a German name, are you?
    I would appreciate if you could at least make the effort to spell my name correctly, that is basic courtesy. My nationality is completely irrelevant to the subject of this discussion, and I do not wish to make that information public.

    Sorry, you know some people make mountain out of mole holes, I was just trying to identify you because I thought I recognised you. I am also sorry about your name, I made a typographical error, have you ever done that before? it was not out of disrespect.



    If one cannot identify the sourse of light
    One can always identify the source of light.

    I am trying to ask a definate question, please read my question and think about what I am asking. If I cannot identify the sourse of light, (where the light is generated) and I see another object showing light, the light I am seeing could be a reflection and not the original sourse. How can I measure the actual speed of light?. The reflection is not the big bang sourse of light but the sourse of the reflective light. What is the difference between reflective light and the original sourse of light, is it the same speed. For example the sun is one original sourse of light, are there many other original sourses of light, and do they have the same speed? Would there not be different speeds of light coming from the original sourse. I hope you can understand this as a direct question.

    Pertaining to time, someone in response to my question said Light and time was not related to humans. My responce was have you been dead before and experienced light and time. prof. Light and time is experienced through the human body, how can it exist when perception has ceased? Do you support that argument that light and time existed before humans?

    What I see could be a reflection
    So what ? In that case the reflection ( mirror, surface etc ) is the source of light. What does that have to do with its speed ?

    I don't think you are responding to my question, or you may not be understanding what I am asking.

    A reflective sourse is only the sourse of the reflection, but light is emanating from the prime sourse. So what is the difference between the reflective sourse and the prime sourse?

    What is your take on my questions?
    My take is that you should be clearer on what exactly it is you are after. This is a science forum, we are not here to solve puzzles and practice telepathy - ask a clear question and you will receive a clear answer.
    Light speed measurement has nothing to do with humans. A blind bat could devise an experiment to measure the propagation speed of EM waves, and would get the same speed of light as result.
    No one here has died, otherwise we wouldn't be sitting on our PCs typing replies to you ! And what does that even have to do with the speed of light ?!
    How can the speed of light have nothing to do with humans when light hits the body at a certain speed. If the speed of light were to change would it have an effect on the human evolution?
    proffesor If you cannot answer my question I don't mind I will move on, if I am not explaining myself well I will try to give some examples but please stop hiding behind pettyness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47 the tenth dimention 
    1 Ugly MoFo warthog213's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    147
    Have you seen the tenth dimention on youtube yet. If not check that out and see how you feel after watching that.
    I got lost after it was discussing the dimention which loops around and then back on it's self. Now how would that possibly apply to any object in our universe, if you asked me that would be dementia not a new dimention.
    Last edited by warthog213; June 17th, 2012 at 11:24 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Strange I knew you were a joker the first time you tried to respond to my question. However I see you are not capable of trying to understand I know you are going to write a book and you will mention what I have taught you. Try looking up the difference between reflective and original sourse. You can use your big bang theory and see if there was light at the big bang. If the big bang was true how many original big bang sourses of light were there. How many different speed of light is there just one? Are you measuring the light that has just reached us and is traveling at the speed you are measuring. Fools rush in where wise men do not enter. Don't smoke too much of that splif who knows what you might say or do next. Maybe you are dead and experiencing light and time. Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    I understand your example and time would certainly make the meeting easier, but it is not essential. A meeting could still be arranged with 2 sets of x,y,z coordinates using intercept trajectories.
    Huh ? That's news to me. At work, when I set up a meeting we always give each other a place and a time, because our lives would be really hard otherwise !!
    Of course time is essential. You can give as many intersect trajectories as you want, but all you specify by doing so is a place. How would you propose a meeting can be arranged if your partner does not know when to be there ? I am not talking about going to a place and then waiting if by chance a meeting will happen there ! The operative word here is unique. You cannot uniquely identify any point in space-time without using a time coordinate - that's like attempting to describe the orbit of a satellite by using just earth surface longitude and latitude coordinates, it just doesn't work.

    As for dimensionality - the very fact that a time coordinate is required to uniquely identify a point in space-time qualifies it as a dimension. In fact that is the very definition of dimension :

    "In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it."

    which is from this article - have a read through it :

    Dimension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    How many different speed of light is there just one?
    Yes, just one. It doesn't matter where the light came from, where it is going, who sees it or not. It doesn't matter how many sources there are, and whether those are reflections or not. The speed of light is always the same.
    At least a wise man knows his own folly, whereas those fools who think themselves wise are true fools indeed.
    This joke is on you, my friend.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    95
    Firstof all may I make the observation that it is disturbing to see twopeople disagreeing and arguing over two completely differentunderstandings of what the other is saying.


    Ideduce that you, Mother/father are Jamaican, which in itself is noproblem of course and something I like to see as part of the wonderof the internet that it brings us together.


    However,along with that it does bring a point that we must take into account,that Jamaican English is different from American English, just asAmerican English differs from British English.


    Andnot only the language but the way it is used.


    Havingsaid that, may I venture to attempt a translation? For I do not see Mother/father as someone who is trying to be difficult.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    MarcusHanke, Your name sounds like a German name, are you? I studiedelectronics in West Germany in the city of Cologne.



    Aspelling mistake is not the end of the world and we all make them. The question is only to try and find some common ground. Socialcomment as the writer studied in Germany.

    Iseemed to have caused an uproar in the forum because of the way Ipose my questions, and also because I mentioned that scientist do nothave a clue as to some of the information we are fed. However Ishould have stated that it is not all scientists that are wrong, buta lot of them especially on certain topics. As you can appreciatethere are lots of questions out there and I do believe that thereshould be a little room for question to be posed acording to thethinkers view. It might be that some of us are not equiped to posethe questions in scientific language, never the less it would be niceif some of the learned ones could try to fit themselves into a betterfraim to pick up on what the novis is asking. I am not afraid ofignorance, I am afraid of not being able to express it knowing thatby doing so is the only way I can move on and remove theignorance.
    Someof the statements and claims that scientists make are unsubstantiatedor haven't been rigorously tested. And we can ask questions based onour limited understanding of scientific language.
    Ideasare free, and I think science should make room for other ideas. Theworld and different cultures see things in different ways. I visitthe forum to gather ideas no matter from where they come. However Ifeel thretned by the way my questions are answered and the way inwhich some of the scientist take offence to my questions. If theforum is oppened to only members of the scientists clan then I cantake the insults and fear mongering to throw me off when I askcertain questions. I do not know of anyone who ask meaninglessquestions for them, but I do know of individuals who cannotunderstand the questions and therefore cannot give theanswers.
    If my languageis so different that you do not understand it, do not just dismissthem without trying to discover what I am saying.
    Myoriginal question was centered at the speed of light. If one cannotidentify the sourse of light, how can we know what the speed of lightreally is?
    Q.How do we know how fast it is if we don't know the source (presumablyhow fast that is moving)
    A.the speed of light is the same whatever the speed of the source. Itis the same independent of any motion of either the source or therecipient. How that could be is the question that resulted inSpecial Relativity as the explanation.
    WhatI see could be a reflection. The measurement of any phenomena musthave a connection to the human being because the human is the firstknown of any equation.

    Q.If it were a reflection then the what was the speed of the sourcerelative to the mirror?
    A. Again itdoesn't matter – see my previous answer.
    (guessing alittle here) Hoe a phenomenon is measured must be relative to anobserver.
    Iwas told that the measurement of light does not have anything to dowith humans, because light and time was present before humans.

    Iquestioned this and said, no I, no time, no I, no light. I furtherasked if anyone had died and experienced light, or time?
    Q.If measuring light has nothing to do with humans, how could it bemeasured
    noI, no time, no I, no light” - If I am not here how can I measuretime; if I am not here how can I measure light?
    Thewriter is questioning the act of measuring, not the existence of timeor light.
    Iwas told my questions are stupid and I am eluding myself, I am anidiot and such things. What is your take on my questions?
    I do not thinkso. I believe it is a communication difficulty.


    This is not inany way accusing any of the respondents to Mother/father's posts ofbeing deliberately awkward or difficult.


    All I am sayingis that with the internet we have the opportunity to talk with peoplefrom all sorts of places and sometimes that means with those whoseuse of English is different to ours.


    Peace andgoodwill to all.

    I hope this will help.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    How can the speed of light have nothing to do with humans when light hits the body at a certain speed.
    Because light hits everything at the same speed. If humans didn't exist, light would still travel at the same speed. I know you have some sort of problem with the idea of a consistent external reality but you haven't been very clear about what the problem is or why it matters.

    If the speed of light were to change would it have an effect on the human evolution?
    Not at all. On human scales it is effectively instantaneous.

    proffesor If you cannot answer my question I don't mind I will move on, if I am not explaining myself well I will try to give some examples but please stop hiding behind pettyness.
    I think there is only one person being petty. And it isn't Markus.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    If the speed of light were to change would it have an effect on the human evolution?
    The speed of light is intrinsic to many fundamental laws of physics. If its value was substantially different to what it is, we might perhaps not be here now to ponder this question.
    My immediate problem is that I still don't get what you are actually aiming at - you have been told already that the speed of light is always the same, regardless of source or detector. What that speed actually is is utterly irrelevant - the point is that it is the same, independent of source and detector.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    However I see you are not capable of trying to understand
    I try to make sense of what you say. Perhaps the problem is on your end?

    I know you are going to write a book and you will mention what I have taught you.
    If I did wrtie a book, you wouldn't even feature as the Ancient Mariner character.

    Try looking up the difference between reflective and original sourse.
    I understand the principles of reflection reasonably well I believe, from both a classical optics perspective and quantum electrodynamcs.

    perhaps you could clarify why you think it is significant?

    You can use your big bang theory and see if there was light at the big bang.
    The universe was dominated by photons from about 10 seconds to about 380,000 years. How is that relevant?

    If the big bang was true how many original big bang sourses of light were there.
    Very, very many. How is that relevant?

    How many different speed of light is there just one?
    Yes, just one.

    Are you measuring the light that has just reached us and is traveling at the speed you are measuring.
    I don't know what that means. You measure the time between two points of known distance. How hard is that to understand? And, as noted above, there are other ways of measuring it which all give the same answer.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    I understand your example and time would certainly make the meeting easier, but it is not essential. A meeting could still be arranged with 2 sets of x,y,z coordinates using intercept trajectories.
    Huh ? That's news to me. At work, when I set up a meeting we always give each other a place and a time, because our lives would be really hard otherwise !!
    Of course time is essential. You can give as many intersect trajectories as you want, but all you specify by doing so is a place. How would you propose a meeting can be arranged if your partner does not know when to be there ? I am not talking about going to a place and then waiting if by chance a meeting will happen there ! The operative word here is unique. You cannot uniquely identify any point in space-time without using a time coordinate - that's like attempting to describe the orbit of a satellite by using just earth surface longitude and latitude coordinates, it just doesn't work.

    As for dimensionality - the very fact that a time coordinate is required to uniquely identify a point in space-time qualifies it as a dimension. In fact that is the very definition of dimension :

    "In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it."

    which is from this article - have a read through it :

    Dimension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This extract is from the webpage you linked:

    A temporal dimension is a dimension of time. Time is often referred to as the "fourth dimension" for this reason, but that is not to imply that it is a spatial dimension. A temporal dimension is one way to measure physical change. It is perceived differently from the three spatial dimensions in that there is only one of it, and that we cannot move freely in time but subjectively move in one direction.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by space at the centre View Post
    I hope this will help.
    Well that is a brave attempt. If you are right about Mother/father's meaning then I am very impressed by your ability to interpret what he writes.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    A temporal dimension is a dimension of time. Time is often referred to as the "fourth dimension" for this reason, but that is not to imply that it is a spatial dimension. A temporal dimension is one way to measure physical change. It is perceived differently from the three spatial dimensions in that there is only one of it, and that we cannot move freely in time but subjectively move in one direction.
    I never said it is the same as a spatial dimension. I only said it is a dimension. And that's exactly what it is. Obviously temporal and spatial dimension aren't the same thing ( and I never said that they are ), but they are still both dimensions of a given manifold.
    Or why do you think your quote starts with "A temporal dimension is a dimension of time" ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Space at the centre, I am very grateful for your clarification and encouragement to find new ways of expressing my views. I am always aware of the problems that presents itself when someone from a different culture tries to interpret what the the other is trying to say. There are some people who think that because I am a Jamaican, I do not know what I am saying because they cannot understand my phraseology. I do resent the idea that the only alternative is to insult the culture and resort to calling each other a fool. The option to ask each other and coorparate with each other is quite lacking in the world we live in today. I am not really into verbal degradation of anyone, I love to disscuss. If I am aware that my questions are not understood I will try my very best to find ways of putting my point across. What I most bitterly detest is trying to make someone look like a fool when it is a matter of communication. I am sure there are things I can teach someone no matter how educated one is. I am always learning something from someone no matter how stupid it might sound to me.

    To make a long story short I am grateful to you for your comments about the misundrstanding that you have noticed going on. All I can say is "one love"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    A temporal dimension is a dimension of time. Time is often referred to as the "fourth dimension" for this reason, but that is not to imply that it is a spatial dimension. A temporal dimension is one way to measure physical change. It is perceived differently from the three spatial dimensions in that there is only one of it, and that we cannot move freely in time but subjectively move in one direction.
    I never said it is the same as a spatial dimension. I only said it is a dimension. And that's exactly what it is. Obviously temporal and spatial dimension aren't the same thing ( and I never said that they are ), but they are still both dimensions of a given manifold.
    Or why do you think your quote starts with "A temporal dimension is a dimension of time" ?

    I think when you have to explain sections of the page you linked to illustrate your point then things are not going well.
    I do think though we may have been talking a little at cross purposes. I've been trying to highlight all along the inherent differences of time from the dimensions we actually use. You apparently have spent quite a while trying explain the relevance of time. Well I'm not doubting that, however all I think is it should be differenciated properly from that of the 'spatial dimensions'. The concept of time as a dimension can and does only ever relate to it'self not the other dimensions therefore it is destrinc and seperate, it has it's own unique qualities and I feel that should be recognised and kept seperate. That is my reason rejecting time as a 4th dimension.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    [QUOTE=Chrisgorlitz;331624The concept of time as a dimension can and does only ever relate to it'self not the other dimensions therefore it is destrinc and seperate, it has it's own unique qualities and I feel that should be recognised and kept seperate. That is my reason rejecting time as a 4th dimension.[/QUOTE]

    There is a limit to how separate you can keep them though. Motion and gravity partly "swap" (rotate) between spatial and temporal dimensions.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    [QUOTE=Strange;331628]
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz;331624The concept of time as a dimension can and does only ever relate to it'self not the other dimensions therefore it is destrinc and seperate, it has it's own unique qualities and I feel that should be recognised and kept seperate. That is my reason rejecting time as a 4th dimension.[/QUOTE

    There is a limit to how separate you can keep them though. Motion and gravity partly "swap" (rotate) between spatial and temporal dimensions.
    Fair enough, my veiws are not set in stone, I am willing to be persuaded by cogent reasoning. It's just I wasn't convinced by the case he was making, in fact I actually think as I was even more convinced I was right. If you wan't to share your opinion, I'm sure it'll be one I respect, I'm more than willing to take it on board and perhaps learn something new.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    The Lorentz transform, which describes time dilation and length contraction, is a (hyperbolic) rotation from a spatial direction to a temporal one: as something moves faster through space it moves slower though time.

    At the extreme, as you fall through the event horizon of a black hole the direction ahead of you becomes your future and (what was) time becomes a spatial dimension.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The Lorentz transform, which describes time dilation and length contraction, is a (hyperbolic) rotation from a spatial direction to a temporal one: as something moves faster through space it moves slower though time.

    At the extreme, as you fall through the event horizon of a black hole the direction ahead of you becomes your future and (what was) time becomes a spatial dimension.
    Ok that took some doing but I just about got my head around that, though it still seems to suggest that only under 'given' conditions in certain instances time can become a spatial dimension.

    Is it your veiw that time should be generally accepted as the 4th dimension?
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Ok that took some doing but I just about got my head around that, though it still seems to suggest that only under 'given' conditions in certain instances time can become a spatial dimension.
    Well, if the complete swapping of temporal and spatial dimensions is an extreme case. But smaller rotations between the dimensions happen all the time (they have to be accounted for by GPS receivers, for example).

    Is it your veiw that time should be generally accepted as the 4th dimension?
    Well, it seems to work... (but you are quite right the the nature of the dimensions is quite different).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Ok that took some doing but I just about got my head around that, though it still seems to suggest that only under 'given' conditions in certain instances time can become a spatial dimension.
    Well, if the complete swapping of temporal and spatial dimensions is an extreme case. But smaller rotations between the dimensions happen all the time (they have to be accounted for by GPS receivers, for example).

    Is it your veiw that time should be generally accepted as the 4th dimension?
    Well, it seems to work... (but you are quite right the the nature of the dimensions is quite different).
    Ok, fair enough, that's good enough for me.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    I think when you have to explain sections of the page you linked to illustrate your point then things are not going well.
    I do think though we may have been talking a little at cross purposes. I've been trying to highlight all along the inherent differences of time from the dimensions we actually use. You apparently have spent quite a while trying explain the relevance of time. Well I'm not doubting that, however all I think is it should be differenciated properly from that of the 'spatial dimensions'. The concept of time as a dimension can and does only ever relate to it'self not the other dimensions therefore it is destrinc and seperate, it has it's own unique qualities and I feel that should be recognised and kept seperate. That is my reason rejecting time as a 4th dimension.
    Well, I can agree with you as far as temporal dimensions being different from spatial dimensions, no question about that.
    I don't agree, however, that time is not a dimension at all. The dimensionality of a given manifold is defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to uniquely identify a point within it - thus time definitely qualifies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman ClaimingLight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post

    How can the speed of light have nothing to do with humans when light hits the body at a certain speed. If the speed of light were to change would it have an effect on the human evolution?
    proffesor If you cannot answer my question I don't mind I will move on, if I am not explaining myself well I will try to give some examples but please stop hiding behind pettyness.
    It is fair to say that without an observer (humans) there could be no measurements.
    It is also fair to say that without measurements there could be no argument of facts.
    Therefore, we can say that arguments of facts could not exist without an observer (note that this isn't the same saying that the facts couldn't exist, even if we didn't notice them).

    When it comes to light, it seems that you're suggesting that it would not exist without someone to observe it. I think you should check out the following link and see if it sounds similar to your beliefs:
    Solipsism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It is possible that all of creation is just a dream and the world we're in doesn't exist in the way that we think it does. I, for one, tend to avoid this view. I find that there exist a great deal of things in the universe that I haven't conceived before I discovered them. I have a hard time comprehending the idea that something exists that I haven't thought of, yet is contingent on my having thought of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    I think when you have to explain sections of the page you linked to illustrate your point then things are not going well.
    I do think though we may have been talking a little at cross purposes. I've been trying to highlight all along the inherent differences of time from the dimensions we actually use. You apparently have spent quite a while trying explain the relevance of time. Well I'm not doubting that, however all I think is it should be differenciated properly from that of the 'spatial dimensions'. The concept of time as a dimension can and does only ever relate to it'self not the other dimensions therefore it is destrinc and seperate, it has it's own unique qualities and I feel that should be recognised and kept seperate. That is my reason rejecting time as a 4th dimension.
    Well, I can agree with you as far as temporal dimensions being different from spatial dimensions, no question about that.
    I don't agree, however, that time is not a dimension at all. The dimensionality of a given manifold is defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to uniquely identify a point within it - thus time definitely qualifies.

    Well if Strange says it's a dimension then that's good enough for me.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Well if Strange says it's a dimension then that's good enough for me.
    Nice as that is, I have to say that Markus knows far more about this than I do. I can only follow the math of General Relativity at a very conceptual level, for example.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman ClaimingLight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    I think when you have to explain sections of the page you linked to illustrate your point then things are not going well.
    I do think though we may have been talking a little at cross purposes. I've been trying to highlight all along the inherent differences of time from the dimensions we actually use. You apparently have spent quite a while trying explain the relevance of time. Well I'm not doubting that, however all I think is it should be differenciated properly from that of the 'spatial dimensions'. The concept of time as a dimension can and does only ever relate to it'self not the other dimensions therefore it is destrinc and seperate, it has it's own unique qualities and I feel that should be recognised and kept seperate. That is my reason rejecting time as a 4th dimension.
    Well, I can agree with you as far as temporal dimensions being different from spatial dimensions, no question about that.
    I don't agree, however, that time is not a dimension at all. The dimensionality of a given manifold is defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to uniquely identify a point within it - thus time definitely qualifies.
    Time absolutely qualifies as a measuring tool for qualifying an event. I disagree that it exists as anything more a tool, however. There is no indication that I am aware of which suggests that there is any 'time' other then now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The Lorentz transform, which describes time dilation and length contraction, is a (hyperbolic) rotation from a spatial direction to a temporal one: as something moves faster through space it moves slower though time.
    Interesting take on Lorentz transforms, but is there anything more than this comparison, time dilating and space contracting, that indicates that one is becoming the other?
    What if each dimension both contracts and dilates? What if these are the same process described from opposite sides?
    So both time and distance are dilated and contracted, it all depends which transformation one is making.
    So:
    t' = γt,
    t' = t/γ,
    x' = γx,
    x' = x/γ
    are all correct depending on whether we are referring to the unit size or the quantity; and whether we are comparing A to B, or B to A!
    When we talk of rotation which dimension are we rotating into? Is it a fifth dimension perhaps?
    The travelling rod gets shorter, while the time lengthens as it moves, units compress as measurements increase?

    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by space at the centre View Post
    What if each dimension both contracts and dilates? What if these are the same process described from opposite sides?
    I don't understand what you are asking. The two are complementary: you rotate from space to time, or vice-versa. This has been confirmed many, many times by experiment and observation.

    When we talk of rotation which dimension are we rotating into? Is it a fifth dimension perhaps?
    You don't need another dimension. You can rotate a circle on a plane (think of the hands of a clock) without needing a third dimension.

    The travelling rod gets shorter, while the time lengthens as it moves
    Correct.

    units compress as measurements increase?
    Not sure what that means.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    [QUOTE=Strange;331900]
    Quote Originally Posted by space at the centre View Post
    What if each dimension both contracts and dilates? What if these are the same process described from opposite sides?
    What if time gets faster as it gets slower, everything moves in a cycle. When oposites colide does it create a new dimention?
    There is all indication that the indivual parts of the whole creates its own opposite. Everything happening at the same time while nothing is happening at the same time.

    Quote "units compress as measurements increase"?
    This would make sence to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by space at the centre View Post
    What if each dimension both contracts and dilates? What if these are the same process described from opposite sides?
    What if time gets faster as it gets slower, everything moves in a cycle. When oposites colide does it create a new dimention?
    There is all indication that the indivual parts of the whole creates its own opposite. Everything happening at the same time while nothing is happening at the same time.

    Quote "units compress as measurements increase"?
    This would make sence to me.
    I am quite sure that it would.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    ox, I think part of the difficulty you have is that you associate philosphy with the sort of mindless drivel being spewed out by a couple of members on this thread. Those examples - you know the ones I mean - are assuredly not philosphy and their authors are no more phlosophers than the dessicated feces of a minah bird.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    ClaimingLight, I see the human factor as the defining factor as you do. My perspective is only an angle to the whole as defined by my individuality. I see myself as the centre and everything else as a projection. I do agree with your statement that time is now and can be seen as a momentum where past and future collides, as it moves along it creates and erases itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    What if time gets faster as it gets slower, everything moves in a cycle. When oposites colide does it create a new dimention?
    There is all indication that the indivual parts of the whole creates its own opposite. Everything happening at the same time while nothing is happening at the same time.
    As noted in another thread, perhaps this is just a language problem. I'm sure you are asking very sensible and intelligent questions. But I am afraid I don't understand so can't really respond. For example, "What if time gets faster as it gets slower": how can something get both faster and slower? That is self contradictory.

    Also, the relationship between time, space and motion is (a) well founded in theory and (b) confirmed by many observations. If you want to extend the theory by brining in "cycles" or "opposites" then you will need an equally good theoretical, mathematical and experimental basis for doing so. "What if" just doesn't work: "what if time is green and colorless"

    Quote "units compress as measurements increase"?
    This would make sence to me.
    Perhaps you could try explaining it then. Does "as measurements increase" mean:
    a) The number of measurements increase?
    b) The rate of measurements increases?
    c) The values measured increase?
    d) None of the above.

    And why would this have any effect on the units? If I measure the length of something more often, the units on my ruler stay as centimeters and stay the same size.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    I see myself as the centre and everything else as a projection.
    Is this an example of:
    a) Solipsism
    b) Arrogance
    c) Mental illness
    d) None of the above.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    ox, I think part of the difficulty you have is that you associate philosphy with the sort of mindless drivel being spewed out by a couple of members on this thread. Those examples - you know the ones I mean - are assuredly not philosphy and their authors are no more phlosophers than the dessicated feces of a minah bird.
    I do not understand what that has to do with science, I realy though this was a science forum?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    I see myself as the centre and everything else as a projection.

    Let me explain. Everything around me places me at the centre. I revolve around my own axis, all I can do is move in smaller and larger circles. I do not move on a strait line but part of a circle. I see my self as a point moving on a circlur line, where ever I go I take the centre with me. What I perceive from the centre is the peripheries. I hope you can get my drift.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    ox, I think part of the difficulty you have is that you associate philosphy with the sort of mindless drivel being spewed out by a couple of members on this thread. Those examples - you know the ones I mean - are assuredly not philosphy and their authors are no more phlosophers than the dessicated feces of a minah bird.
    I do not understand what that has to do with science, I realy though this was a science forum?
    This is the philosophy sub-forum of this science forum. The topic under discussion is supposed to be the philosophy of time. Such discussion ought to follow some of the principles of philosophy, with structured arguments, well defined terms and sound application of logic. Your own contributions appear to fall far short of these requirements. I am simply making an observation to that effect.

    Note: given the volume of word salad appearing from certain members in multiple threads I appear to have postedmy prior post in the wrong thread. Curiously it is almost as much at home here as where it was intended.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    I see myself as the centre and everything else as a projection.
    Is this an example of:
    a) Solipsism
    b) Arrogance
    c) Mental illness
    d) None of the above.
    I am everthing, I am even Z
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    I see myself as the centre and everything else as a projection.

    Let me explain. Everything around me places me at the centre. I revolve around my own axis, all I can do is move in smaller and larger circles. I do not move on a strait line but part of a circle. I see my self as a point moving on a circlur line, where ever I go I take the centre with me. What I perceive from the centre is the peripheries. I hope you can get my drift.
    But as everyone could perceive things in the same way, it is quite useful that some people are able to take a more abstract view and evaluate the world as if they were not at the center. This is far more productive than just assuming the world ceases to exist when you close you eyes. This is why science is able to make progress and your solipsism is of zero value (even to yourself).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    ox, I think part of the difficulty you have is that you associate philosphy with the sort of mindless drivel being spewed out by a couple of members on this thread. Those examples - you know the ones I mean - are assuredly not philosphy and their authors are no more phlosophers than the dessicated feces of a minah bird.
    I do not understand what that has to do with science, I realy though this was a science forum?
    This is the philosophy sub-forum of this science forum. The topic under discussion is supposed to be the philosophy of time. Such discussion ought to follow some of the principles of philosophy, with structured arguments, well defined terms and sound application of logic. Your own contributions appear to fall far short of these requirements. I am simply making an observation to that effect.

    Note: given the volume of word salad appearing from certain members in multiple threads I appear to have postedmy prior post in the wrong thread. Curiously it is almost as much at home here as where it was intended.
    Please explain the terms you lay down for human philosophy so I can follow it. I would really like to hear the human side of your philosophy and not just book, I mean something you have experienced for yourself. Please lets try to talk without insults.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Strange, I am value itself, how can I not be at the centre when I am. Every one brings value to life. Science is real for you but not every one will agree with what you say, yet life goes on with this conradiction becuase everthing is a part of the whole. Science is just a study of phenomenon. I do not think you are foolish because I do not see everthing you say. I studied electronics but I do not agree with all I learnt.
    Just imagine, everthing happening on planet earth at the same time as a certral time unit, yet things are happening at different time units on the same planet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Please explain the terms you lay down for human philosophy so I can follow it.
    What do you mean by human philosophy? As far as we currently know philosophy is uniqure to humans, so the introduction of an adjectival modifier is pointless. Why would you introduce that? Is it sloppy thinking - which is my first guess - or is there some other concept you are trying to convey.

    Secondly, I don't lay down any terms for philosophy. I'm not even sure what you mean by that. In as much as I do lay down terms I have done so in my prior post. Discussions of philosophy should include
    1) Definition of terms.
    2) Well structured arguments
    3) Sound application of logic

    These may not be the only requirements, but these are essential and often absent from your posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    I would really like to hear the human side of your philosophy and not just book, I mean something you have experienced for yourself. Please lets try to talk without insults.
    Your question has no meaning for me. Philosophy is not something one experiences. It is not a good meal, or the appreciation of a sunset. It is a suite of methodolgies for exploring the universe. Any experience I have in that regard is insiginificant compared with the results of intensive, long lasting work by philosophers of note.

    I am sorry if you find my remarks about your posts insulting. I am respecting you by being completely honest about my assessment of their value. I see no reason that you could not bring reason into your posts, but thus far I see no indication you have any intention of doing so.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Strange, I am value itself, how can I not be at the centre when I am.
    You sound deluded to me. Have you considered professional help?

    Science is real for you but not every one will agree with what you say
    The nice thing about science is that it doesn't matter what an individual says. It doesn't matter whether someone else disagrees. It still works. It doesn't matter if someone thinks that relativity is wrong or electrons don't exist or the universe revolves around them. They can still use their GPS system; it doesn't depend on them understanding or believing in it.

    Science is just a study of phenomenon.
    It is a method for studying phenomena which gets rid of unhelpful human biases (such as people thinking they are the center of the universe or that it sprang into existence at their birth).
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    John, That is percisely what I have noticed about you. You state you do not lay down the terms, and yet you do. When I expain my observation you reject it and replace it with how you want to hear my views, thus dictating what I should say. Philosophy is based on ideas, how one structure these ideas is based on ones experience. Even if you want to embrace the the idea from a individual point of view it remains an idea. I can not acept that there is a universial philosophy that does not include me. As you well know your intelligence is based on what you know and what you don't know. I find it unrealistic to claim inteligence when you fail to give it to others.

    What would you accept as sound application of logic? I do not use your words because it does not lend value to my arguments, but I do see your points althought I may not agree with them.

    You do think yoru arguments are well structured because you went to school and they taught you how to say these words but you have yet to validate them for your self. I have a book called the closing of the American mind that explaines that too many studients are coming out of the universities swallowing books but do not have experience to back it up. I am sure you do not belong to that group.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    What would you acept as sound application of logic?
    You do understand the concept of "logic", don't you? (1)
    "A logical argument is a finite sequence of sentences (called well-formed formulas in the case of a formal language) each of which is an axiom or follows from the preceding sentences in the sequence by a rule of inference" (Wikipedia)

    This can use rules of logic such as "P implies Q; P is asserted to be true, so therefore Q must be true" (modus ponens), etc. You should also understand the difference between a well-formed and a valid argument, etc.

    (1) Actually, judging by your woolly and half-formed ideas, I guess perhaps not.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Jamaica
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Strange, I am value itself, how can I not be at the centre when I am.
    You sound deluded to me. Have you considered professional help?

    Science is real for you but not every one will agree with what you say
    The nice thing about science is that it doesn't matter what an individual says. It doesn't matter whether someone else disagrees. It still works. It doesn't matter if someone thinks that relativity is wrong or electrons don't exist or the universe revolves around them. They can still use their GPS system; it doesn't depend on them understanding or believing in it.

    Science is just a study of phenomenon.
    It is a method for studying phenomena which gets rid of unhelpful human biases (such as people thinking they are the center of the universe or that it sprang into existence at their birth).
    Strange, I do find you strange, but you make me laugh, so I do get something from the attempt to communicate. I have no problems with science, I do not consider it the all and everthing as you do. Some people think religion is the all and everthing I cannot accept that. I do think however that you sound somewhat robotic in you views as if you don't like humans, or let me say thier views. I think science is valid but only up to a certain point. I do not think science works all the time. I do hope you will have your GPS system with you all the time.

    Please take this as a joke. I may need proffesional help, but you need some screws and a screw driver. Ha Ha Ha !!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    Strange, I do find you strange, but you make me laugh, so I do get something from the attempt to communicate.
    Good. We are both winning then!

    I have no problems with science, I do not consider it the all and everthing as you do.
    I do not consider it "all and everything". There is a place for art, music, religion, fantasy. But this is a science forum and so I expect discussions to be at least vaguely rational.

    I have just noticed that this is in the Philosophy sub-forum so I should probably bail out. But while someone was asking about things which are clearly in the domain of science (the speed of light) I thought it worth giving an answer. If you want to philosophize about the role of man and/or consciousness and the true nature of the universe then feel free. (But we know what the speed of light is and how to measure it.)

    I think science is valid but only up to a certain point.
    Up until the data runs out, I guess.

    I do not think science works all the time.
    It works where it is supposed to work, where it is relevant.

    I do hope you will have your GPS system with you all the time.
    I don't have one (I don't trust them!)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Mother/father View Post
    John, That is percisely what I have noticed about you. You state you do not lay down the terms, and yet you do.
    You specifically asked me to state the terms I laid down for human philosophy, not for the terms I lay down for meaningful communication on this forum. You are, illogically, moving the goalposts.

    Moreover I clearly stated the terms I felt should apply to philosophy. These are not terms I laid down, but terms that philosphers have laid down in the past. I simply have the smarts to recognise their value.


    When I expain my observation you reject it and replace it with how you want to hear my views, thus dictating what I should say.
    I inform you that much of what you say makes no sense and therefore I must reject it as meaningless word salad.
    I can not acept that there is a universial philosophy that does not include me.
    So? No one claimed that there was.

    As you well know your intelligence is based on what you know and what you don't know. I find it unrealistic to claim inteligence when you fail to give it to others.
    That is not what intelligence is based on. I have not claimed intelligence. You have made a poor showing of demonstrating yours. Don't try to pin that failure on me.

    You do think yoru arguments are well structured because you went to school and they taught you how to say these words but you have yet to validate them for your self
    Incorrect. I learned to make structured arguments somewhat independtly of the formal educational process. At 63 I have rather more experience than I should like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,995
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I learned to make structured arguments somewhat independtly of the formal educational process.
    Same here. I wish that things like critical thinking and formal logic were taught in schools from the earliest possible age. Unfortunately, there is no incentive for politicians to support this. Quite the reverse in fact; it could produce a generation who can see through them.
    ClaimingLight likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Freshman ClaimingLight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I learned to make structured arguments somewhat independtly of the formal educational process.
    Same here. I wish that things like critical thinking and formal logic were taught in schools from the earliest possible age. Unfortunately, there is no incentive for politicians to support this. Quite the reverse in fact; it could produce a generation who can see through them.

    I think it's uncomfortable underneath this thumb, and therefore it is.
    I approve this message.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. How will philosophy survive?
    By ox in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 132
    Last Post: July 12th, 2012, 09:00 PM
  2. What does philosophy do?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: October 30th, 2009, 08:29 AM
  3. That’s philosophy for ya!
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 30th, 2009, 09:25 AM
  4. God’s philosophy.
    By Greatest I am in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: October 6th, 2008, 02:48 PM
  5. Donny Darko and the Philosophy of Time Travel
    By Aryl7 in forum Science-Fiction and Non-Fiction
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 20th, 2006, 08:50 AM
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
  •