Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 105 of 105

Thread: Time

  1. #101  
    Forum Freshman wolwerine94's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Metatron
    Here’s the truth of the matter, when we observe the movement of time it is only a temporal view of a system that contains a duality, this duality giving the other its contextual meaning.
    Oh dear. No I don't understand even this simple sentence. I must be truly thick.
    What is the movement of time? Do you mean the passage of time? If you do, why not say so? why confuse the issue by using a familiar word in an unfamiliar setting. This is science, not art. If you mean something else, what is it? How does time move?
    When we observe the movement of time it is only a temporal view....
    Which translates as "when we view the passage of time it is only a view taken from the perspective of the passage of time." Null semantic content. (In English? Certainly. It doesn't mean anything.)

    ....view of a system that contains a duality...
    What is the duality? Nowhere, in the passage I quote, or later, do you tell us what the duality is. Is this a guessing game? Can I play too? Can you guess what I'm thinking right now? ........ Very close. You are good at this.

    this duality giving the other its contextual meaning
    Which duality? As written you have two dualities. That's two pairs of 'things'. I suspect you meant to have only a single one. But what is it? What is its partner?
    And it gives it 'contextual' meaning. What is the context? You haven't told us? What is the difference between 'meaning' and 'contextual meaning' in the context of your post?

    That's just a single sentence Metatron. I have no intention of failing to analyse the rest. I have already wasted several minutes trying to extract meaning from it without success. Perhaps this is my failure: somehow I doubt it. I can comfortably handle everything from James Joyce to Joyce Grenfell, from Bart Simpson to George Gaylord Simpson. The finger is pointing towards you. Please [truly heartfelt plea] learn to express yourself more clearly.
    Reply With Quote  

  2. #102  
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Quote Originally Posted by sploit
    It has already been shown that time can slow down. Time slows down as velocity increases. The best way I can illustrate this is imagine a spacecraft sitting in the hangar with an atomic clock on it. The particle (cessium) occilates back and forth like such:
          / \
       /        \
      /            \
      \            /
         \      /
    Crude drawing, but basically it oscillates between the two and the particle also oscillates (that part isn't too important here).

    When the spacecraft is in space flying along, we'll assume it can exceed the speed of light if it wants, just below the speed of light. The particle has a much larger distance to travel.
    ------------                        -------------------                     -------------------
                  \                                                                                /  
                             \                                                         /
                                      \                                     /
                                                 \               /
    ------------                         -----------------                       -------------------
    Because the particle can not speed up to cover this same amount of distance. Time must slow down to accomodate it. I do not fully understand this concept myself, but this is how it was taught to me.

    I'm not one to believe in time, destiny sure, time no. In other words I don't believe time can be traversed, or that somehow matter can exist in another time. It does make for great Hollywood. Perhaps someone can elaborate on how time could possibly exist?
    Now ... as to this. I find it amusing that on a science forum you blindly believe in destiny, yet have no faith in theoretical physics. Physics, even theoretical physics, are backed by proven principles and logical hypotheses.
    You were shown that a radioactive substance, shielded by the earths atmosphere in a hanger. Moving at very high rates of speed with the earth, that is moving very fast, oscillates at such and such a frequency.

    Then you were shown that the radio active substance when flown through the earths atmosphere, ungrounded. Through an area that is the electrical junction to space, creates different effects on the clock. This is true. Those fields will effect regular equipment as well. Those fields effect the compass. We know there is electrical current running through the atmosphere.

    Time did not slow down. The reason for black box flight recorders that withstood total destruction of the plane. And yet saved the magnetic recording tape. Countered these effects that slowed down the clock. The clock in a special black box, at a fixed ambient voltage will move and work the same as the one on the ground.

    There is no time distortion. This was yet another misunderstanding that poor multi particle scientists had when Universal Scientists explained that here on earth there is no way to isolate the elements above #86.

    The earth radiation is to slow and overwhelming to allow for delicate isolation of the elements above #86. And we have not yet isolated them. That is why they are isotopes.

    Some multi subatomic particle scintists suggested a plane or space craft. However that is where the radiation is coming from. The Universal Scientist already knew what would happen to radio active substances in a plane or in space in low orbit. Or in the rays of the sun. The Universal scientists felt that on a large cold planet that it would be easy to isolate them, in a less excited state.


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  

  3. #103 time 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    the concept of time has arisen from phenomenon like rotation and revolution of earth
    Reply With Quote  

  4. #104  
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Quote Originally Posted by TB
    Hi (In)Sanity,
    Well considering the only basis we have for time is the movement of matter, I have to conclude that we really can't prove beyond a doubt that time is being impacted at all by higher speeds and not just matter itself
    I do not see the connection between the assumption in the first part of your sentence with the conclusion. Can you explain how the possibility that changing states of matter measures the passage of time and therefore, there is no way we can prove that time is impacted by higher speeds? The theoretical proving of time being slowed by speed is simple, but it makes the assumption that the speed of light cannot change.

    Imagine an observer outside of a train, in which there is a light source in the floor, an opposing mirror and a person. The outside observer is fixed in position relative to the train, and the train is travelling at the speed of light. The person inside the train will see the light beam emitted and be reflected inside the train. The beam will have travelled twice the height of the train. To the observer outside the train, not only will they have seen the light travel from the floor to the roof and back, but as the train is travelling at the speed of light, they will have seen the light beam move laterally. That is, by the time the light reached the ceiling the train had moved the same distance laterally. Likewise for the reflection of the light. The fact that the outside observer saw the light cover a greater distance than the person inside the carriage, and if light speed is constant, then only time itself can be the variable. The conclusion is that time was slower for the person inside the train. Similary there is impact upon the mass and size of the train. It tends to shorten and become more dense as it increases speed.

    Why is light speed constant? Good question, I have taken Einsteins word on this and not studied the proofs closely. Based upon your post and my response I will return to it and see if I can make sense of it.

    In an environment truly void of matter and energy time would not exist
    No problem with this statement, this is the supposed state prior to the big bang. The problem comes with describing the state in terms that are meaninful to us.
    Time is a concept, not something to be taken as a physical object.
    Time being a concept does not preclude it from being a physical object. However do not confuse an object with a dimension. Space, 3 dimensional, defines objects. Time defines the change in the state of these dimensions, becoming a 4th dimension, but it is not described as an object.
    Look at it another way, what is a billion years to the universe? Before man placed a definition on the word year it had no meaning at all to the universe as a whole.
    Man has defined metrics to describe the passage of time, like second, year, etc. However man has not created them, this passage of time did exist before we described just as matter did. I am well aware of the solipsistic arguments questioning the existence of matter, but I have made the assumption that matter does exist for the sake of our discussions.
    Another problem we run into, if matter really does slow it's process with speed then traveling great distances becomes irrelevant. The ship we would travel in would age less, as would the crew on board. This is an old concept I know. Has time changed because the crew does not age at the same rate as they would have back on earth? No, it's still the same old measurement it has always been, the man made way to measure movement.
    You might have a case here if you an an absolute point of reference, but you do not. To the people inside the spacecraft they will judge by theirs, just as those outside will have a different reference. Time becomes relative to your speed relative to a constant point. Since there is no constant point in the universe, all objects are speeding away from each other at accelerating speeds, time will get very rubbery. This is not something I have looked at, but once again, thanks to your post, I now will.
    One has to ask, why does matter slow down when accelerated, clearly there is an outside force pushing on the very atoms causing this slow down
    Matter does not slow down as it accelerates, time does. Matter speeds up, hence the use of the word 'accelerate', something we have predefined. The fact that it becomes smaller and more dense might be caused by an 'outside force', something I have not considered.
    I'm sure some day we'll figure it out. For now we can just keep debating about it and perhaps broaden our understanding
    Once again, I recommend some reading of relativity, it is suprisingly simple and saves lots of dead end debates when you see that many of the questions we debate here, have been plumbed by greater minds than ours. Our exchanges have forced me to question how well I understand these concepts and raised aspects I had not even seen. Thankyou for that.
    If you went to any highly intelligent company owner and designer of equipment, high tech, low tech, it doesn't matter, they deal with it all in manufacturing. They have seen it alL.
    And you gave them those kind of examples, of trains and lightning, they would show you thousands of holes in the basics.

    All these strange scenarios with lightning in the middle of the train. At the back of train. They leave so many variables that it is just a childish, what if, what if, nonsensical admission of, I don't know to much about reality, but I want it to be like this. Rather then a scientific, rather hard cold look at what the actuality is.

    But I am one mean son of gun. Don't take it the wrong way.

    Where every individual is, every given second, is what records time, as a unique moment. Because you might even be able to get everyone back to a similar place, in the universe. But their frame of mind would never be the same. I do not believe that God could even do that. He would have to negate the spirit.
    So time passes and you should spend every second doing your duty to America and God.

    Nothing deserves your utter most patronage more then the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. George Washington.

    Time travel is just out of the question. Life is too cheap now.
    Imagine if you convinced a nation that it did not matter what you did, because you can go back in time and make it right? Ha-ha. That is the definition of chaos.
    Why not just do it right, and bravely, the first time around, or from here on out do it right, and bravely? Because you are afraid that someone will time travel and undermine your bravery and good deeds. I doubt it.

    Newton talked about the Universe in many cases not localized events. He was pretty deep. He never said that you could not create a perpetual motion device on earth. He basically said that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. He was referring to the Universe on a whole.

    You can detect amazing things small events from a great distance away. So that energy or velocity is not localized. It has far reaching effects. Before it is done or equalized. I am just trying to say take a good look at Newton.


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  

  5. #105  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    I think time can be best understood as a consequence of motion, rather than a dimensional projection.
    While physical reality goes from past events to future ones, the information of these events goes the other way. First it is future potential, then past circumstance. If time is a fundamental dimension, then physical reality proceeds along it, from past events to future ones, but if time is a consequence of motion, then physical reality is simply energy in space and the events, once created, are replaced by the next and recede into the past. It isn't presentism because time as a point would be meaningless as a measure of motion. The only absolute time would be like absolute temperature; the complete absence of it. So any description requiring time has an inherently fuzzy position.
    Of course most motion is at the speed of light, but we cannot process it in real time, so our minds create flashes of perception, like frames of film. Thus to us, time does seem like a series of instants. The consciousness of the physical brain moves forward in time, but the intellect of the mind is a record and study of the events receding into the past.
    Consider a thermal medium, say a pot of hot water, with lots of water molecules moving about. To construct a timekeeping device out of this we would measure the motion of one of these points of reference against the medium it is moving through. The point is the hand and the medium is the face of the clock. Obviously all the other points are hands of their own clocks, but are medium/face for all other clocks. The motion of any point/hand is balanced by the reaction of the medium/face of the clock. So to the hand of the clock, the face goes counterclockwise. At any one moment, the positions of all these points constitute an event, so while any and all of them go from past events to future ones, the medium against which any point is being judged is the overall context, which once created, is displaced by the next, as all these individual points move around, so the events go from future potential to past circumstance. The illusion of direction is created because the reference point moves through the series of circumstances, though these events go the other way. There are innumerable points of reference describing their own narrative, so every potential clock constitutes its own measure of time. Whether the earth rotating and creating days, or a cesium atom going through transitions, or strings and vibrations, conserved energy goes toward the future, as the information defining it recedes into the past.
    The same logic which argues time is an additional directional dimension could be used to argue temperature as another parameter of volume. Distance and volume are descriptions of the vacuum, while time and temperature are consequences of the fluctuation.
    Reply With Quote  

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts