Time, Temporality & Perceptions Thereof: What Are They?

[rynner2]

We move from present moment to present moment and in the next moment everything has moved and so changed - movement, not time.

Trying to define movement without referring to time shows how circular this argument is.

 

[Yithian]

the arrow of time is a result of the early universe(and everything with) as being hotter/more enegetic and is slowly becoming cooler /less enegetic
maybe the reason (in relativity)you seem to trave at a diffrent rate of time as you near the speed of light is because you are gaining energy as opposed to the background universe (you are standing still and its moving)

Relativity and 'the arrow of time' don't work together.

Relativistic theories utilise/require(?) 'events' in space-time and are not compatible with the classical view, whereby a three-dimensional physical world moves along a fixed line, with objects being created, persisting for a duration and then being destroyed.

 

[Ghostisfort]

A prerequisite for relativity is that you don't understand it, even the experts don't agree. It was devised with the intention of it not being understandable because this gives physics a mystique and the myth of some all-knowing hierophant who does understand, but does not exist.
All attempts to prove that it works have been ambiguous or failures including the most recent one, the claim seemingly that the equipment was not sufficiently sensitive, but it's hard to tell just what's going on.

Example:

In 1971, experimenters from the U.S. Naval Observatory undertook an experiment to test time dilation . They made airline flights around the world in both directions, each circuit taking about three days. They carried with them four caesium beam atomic clocks. When they returned and compared their clocks with the clock of the Observatory in Washington, D.C., they had gained about 0.15 microseconds compared to the ground based clock. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... irtim.html

"Louis Essen, elected FRS for developing the Caesium Clock, wrote to Nature that the alleged confirmation of Relativity by the gentlemen who took Caesium Clocks round the world by airplane was bogus because the caesium clock did not have the claimed accuracy. Nature refused to publish, preferring the PC 'confirmation' of relativity to stand."
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/w4rlectu.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.com/3600.htm

I also can supply several links that show that radioactivity varies with the movement of the Earth in orbit, thus destroying the concept of universal time.

It also suggests that the accepted atomic theory is wrong. The implication being, that radioactivity is caused by cosmic rays interacting with certain materials and not an inherent property.
This was a fact pointed-out by Nikola Tesla a hundred years ago.

This is not intended to cause flaming or insult, but for the furtherance of the Fortean discipline of 'Scientific Anomalistics.

 

[Ghostisfort]

We move from present moment to present moment and in the next moment everything has moved and so changed - movement, not time.

Trying to define movement without referring to time shows how circular this argument is.

The English language does not allow one to speak of such things without mentioning temporally related words. How do you convey the moment without using the word moment?
However:

Physics, Moment
a. The product of a quantity and its perpendicular distance from a reference point.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moment

 

[Yithian]

It was devised with the intention of it not being understandable because this gives physics a mystique and the myth of some all-knowing hierophant who does understand, but does not exist.

Unfounded (ranting) speculation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson- ... experiment

'Relativity' is not a single monolithic theory; it's an evolving paradigm.

As for your objection to Rynner's point, you might want to revisit your spelling and your links.

 

[rynner2]

rynner2 wrote:

Ghostisfort wrote:
We move from present moment to present moment and in the next moment everything has moved and so changed - movement, not time.

Trying to define movement without referring to time shows how circular this argument is.

The English language does not allow one to speak of such things without mentioning temporally related words. How do you convey the moment without using the word moment?
However:

Physics, Moment
a. The product of a quantity and its perpendicular distance from a reference point.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moment

You are either confused yourself, or you're trying to confuse others.
The definition of 'Moment' you quote is only one of several given on that link, and it has nothing to do with time!
(It is in fact related to torque. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/torque )

 

[rynner2]

A prerequisite for relativity is that you don't understand it, even the experts don't agree.

You may not understand it, but many people do.

Special Relativity is now part of the A-level Physics curriculum (unlike when I did A-levels) - maybe in another 40 years General Relativity will be included too! 8)

 

[Ghostisfort]

As usual, this thread is slipping into the abyss of emotion.
I find myself with answers that appear to come from those with a personal agenda, probably their job is involved or it may be just authoritarianism or those who use authority to be right.
We live in interesting times and all the permanent institutions of the past are showing their weaknesses.
This is interesting from a Fortean viewpoint that always said that hand waving explanations and theorising would fail in the long term.

 

[rynner2]

This is interesting from a Fortean viewpoint that always said that hand waving explanations and theorising would fail in the long term.

You mustn't be so hard on yourself!

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Please do not make personal attacks, or comments. It is flaming, however witty Posters may believe they are being.

Stick to the discussion. That's the important bit.

P_M

 

[rynner2]

Please do not make personal attacks, or comments.

So, if Ghostisfort says to me "This is interesting from a Fortean viewpoint that always said that hand waving explanations and theorising would fail in the long term", or says the thread is being dragged into "the abyss of emotion" by people with "answers that appear to come from those with a personal agenda", that's all right?

But if I reflect just part of that back at him, it's a 'personal attack'?

All I ask is a level playing field.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Rynner, check your PMs.

If you have any more queries, I suggest you PM me, or one of the other moderators.

Please keep this sort of off-topic stuff off Thread.

P_M

 

[Anome]

As usual, this thread is slipping into the abyss of emotion.

Actually, that's fairly uncommon on this board. Most threads manage to avoid it.

 

[TinFinger_]

Relativity and 'the arrow of time' don't work together. [/quote]

id say it might be that time is due to the universe(losing energy) and everything in it,wether or not its moving
and if it is moving it must be gaining energy as opposed to the background

imo time must be something so encompassing it is unavoidable,or it would have been noticed that it isnt applying to some things by now

for me the universe itself is the best candidate as everything that exsists can only do so within.

relativity says that time for the traveler will be diffrent to the observer,but its always one way.time travels the same direction(arrow of time)

 

[Ideasman]

TinFinger, I'd recommend Sean Carrol's From Eternity to Here http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp/0452296544/lecturenotesonge as a very thorough but easy introduction to this whole topic.

 

[TinFinger_]

nice

thankyou..

 

[Ghostisfort]

Please do not make personal attacks, or comments.

So, if Ghostisfort says to me "This is interesting from a Fortean viewpoint that always said that hand waving explanations and theorising would fail in the long term", or says the thread is being dragged into "the abyss of emotion" by people with "answers that appear to come from those with a personal agenda", that's all right?

But if I reflect just part of that back at him, it's a 'personal attack'?

All I ask is a level playing field.

I've not been able to answer due to other responsibilities, but this covers much of what has been discussed so far?
http://www.n-atlantis.com/ether.htm

 

[yogabbagabba]

I recently found out, and it blew my mind, that we move through time at the speed of light, and any motion we have through the universe is subtracted from our speed through time, amazing

 

[eburacum]

I recently found out, and it blew my mind, that we move through time at the speed of light, and any motion we have through the universe is subtracted from our speed through time, amazing

Yes; Brian Cox stated this on a recent television show, and I've heard it elsewhere as well. I believe that it was one of the ways that Einstein tried to visualise relativity. But it is more of an analogy than an accurate way of looking at time, I think.

Any phenomenon which travels at c is supposed to experience zero time passing, so how that can be squared with spacetime as experienced by an observer imbedded in it I'm not quite sure.

 

[yogabbagabba]

I saw Brian Cox's doc ' what on earth is wrong with gravity' he explained that Einstein suggested time, past present and future all exist now, which meant our future had already happened, I think he was trying to say free will is an illusion, Cox didnt agree at least he said it 'didn't feel right', interesting stuff.

Also watched 'how long is a piece of string' with Alan Davies, it also blew my mind towards they end of the doc when they explained how plants use (I am really struggling to describe what they explained) quantum mechanics to photosynthesise, kinda like the double slit experiment, plants are almost 100% efficient when they use light, it meant they use every quantum path that a particle could possibly take. It might be better if you watched the video, explains it way better than I possibly could:

http://youtu.be/fwZte5CNo1Q

The physicist has the best laugh ever, which is a bonus.

 

[Yithian]

I saw Brian Cox's doc ' what on earth is wrong with gravity' he explained that Einstein suggested time, past present and future all exist now, which meant our future had already happened, I think he was trying to say free will is an illusion, Cox didn't agree at least he said it 'didn't feel right', interesting stuff.

That's precisely what I meant when I said that 'time's arrow' was not compatible with relativity. The qualification is that there is no 'now' in a singular, absolute sense - there are a infinite number of possible 'nows' spread out across the totality of the universe. From each of these points events are judged to be 'past' or 'future', but observers at differing points needn't agree. There is no [one] 'now'; it's not that 'past', 'present' and 'now' all exist contemporaneously at this very moment, rather it's that depending where you are and what events you are examining, those terms refer to different things. This picture certainly does raise issues with our notion of free will.

(Open to criticism/correction: I'm a philosopher not a physicist)

 

[rynner2]

Observers in motion relative to each other may well disagree about the order in which two separated events happen. But because of the way that space and time intertwine in Relativity this would never lead to a paradox. For example, a child could not be born before its mother, because the birth happens at just one place.

But if two mothers, far apart in space, give birth simultaneously, as seen by Observer A, then Observer B, in motion relative to A, might well see the two events at different times.

There's a fairly simple mental model for this (which I think came from Einstein himself): Oberver A is at rest on the ground, watching a train pass by - he's level with the middle of the train. He sees two lighting strikes hit the ground simultaneously, one level with the front of the train, the other level with the back.

But Observer B (who happens to be riding in the middle of the train ) sees the lightning strike at the front of the train first! Two observers in relative motion can't agree whether separated events are simultaneous.

The thing is, the speed of light is constant for all observers. The flashes take time to reach the two observers. In A's world, B is moving towards the front flash, and away from the rear one, so A can understand how B sees the front flash first.

In the train, B's world, A is moving 'backwards', so it takes longer for the light from the front flash to reach him (A) than the light from the rear flash. But B (who is a good mathematician 8) ) quickly calculates that the extra distance the earlier flash has to travel exactly compensates for the difference in time between the two flashes, so he realises that A will see the flashes simultaneously.

This kind of symmetry is always at work in Relativity. And there's no way one point of view can claim to be the 'real' situation, and the other is just an 'illusion', because there can be as many POVs as there observers in motion. To the simple mental model given we could add another railway line with a train going at a different speed, and planes in the air, and spacecraft orbiting overhead... All these different observers will disagree about which flash occurred first, and by how much.

As the saying goes, it's all relative!

 

[TinFinger_]

thanks for the posts guys nice to see the thread return to topic,im keeping the book for a nice chrimbo idea (yes i have to tell people what i want lol)

im happy i have more to think about on another one of those long boring drives home

 

[Ghostisfort]

Using relativity as an intellectual game is fine I suppose, unless it ceases to be a game and the gamer becomes like a mindless football supporter, on his knees chanting Science, Science, my team.

There is absolutely nothing in our everyday lives where relativity is likely to affect us. Neither we nor any scientist is ever likely to encounter a relativistic effect that makes the slightest difference to anything resembling mundane reality. Such is the minuteness of its supposed effects, that no instrument built by human engineers is capable of detecting it. (See the link below)

Coming at this from a different angle: Getting stuck in something that for all intents and purposes does not exist is not sensible or useful for building a life philosophy or even mental stability. Also, looking at only the things that support a theory and never those that don't is being dishonest to oneself... peer reviewed journals will never say anything against relativity.

These linked pages were written by someone, now sadly deceased, who knew much more about the subject than do I. http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson ... gotten.htm

During the 1940's CS Lewis wrote, that in asking a scientist about possible problems with science, one is likely to find that often the scientist does not even understand the question. It was this lack of understanding that led him to the certainty that something was indeed wrong.

I think Lewis sums-up my own position on the subject and in particular the wild imaginings about relativity theories.

A discussion is not a discussion if both sides are not examined, it is simply agreeing with a dogma.

 

[rynner2]

Same old same old...
It'd be a waste of my time to deal with all your allegations, culled as they are from dodgy web sites, but I won't let this bit of nonsense pass:

Such is the minuteness of [relativity's] supposed effects, that no instrument built by human engineers is capable of detecting it.

Not so. For example, optical telescopes can detect Einstein Rings, an effect of gravitational lensing.

In observational astronomy an Einstein ring is the deformation of the light from a source (such as a galaxy or star) into a ring through gravitational lensing of the source's light by an object with an extremely large mass (such as another galaxy, or a black hole). This occurs when the source, lens and observer are all aligned. The first complete Einstein ring, designated B1938+666, was discovered by collaboration between astronomers at the University of Manchester and NASA's Hubble Space Telescope in 1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring

 

[Ghostisfort]

There are the 'same old' optical effects that can account for this that do not involve relativistic explanations.
Eddington's eclipse photographs were criticised by many of his peers in astronomy and all such proofs have had their numerous critics. It's just pure choice to opt for uncle Albert's ideas because of the elegant math'.

I can think of examples of telescopic observations of occultations of stars that hang on the limb of the Moon and planets.

Every anomalist knows about such things and I'm sure I'm not the only one to observe how the so called proofs get ever further away for us.
No one is going to check-out a pulsar in the next thousand years or whenever we get around to building starships?

 

[eburacum]

For example, a child could not be born before its mother, because the birth happens at just one place.

I wonder if you have read Heinlein's '"-All You Zombies-"'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%94A ... s%E2%80%94

If we allow for the possibility of faster-than-light or instantaneous travel, it would be possible for a child to be born before her own mother, or even to become her own mother, as causality is not conserved in relativity if you can go faster than c. But the universe would be a lot weirder if FTL were a reality.

 

[Twin_Star]

Such is the minuteness of its supposed effects, that no instrument built by human engineers is capable of detecting it.

Err, hang on didn't the Gravity Probe B experiment recently confirm some of Einstein's relativistic predictions WRT 'Frame Dragging' and whatnot. I certainly thought so:

http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html

Of course, the sigma level in the published papers might not be enough for certain critics, but i would have thought that's more a matter of taste than anything else...

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

There's also the fact that gravitational lensing, an effect clearly predicted by Einstein's theory of General Relativity, has become a very useful piece of equipment in modern astronomy, as a sort of accidental telescope.

The telescope effect is known as, Gravitational Microlensing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_microlensing

It's often been used to detect extra-solar planets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_microlensing#Detection_of_extrasolar_planets

Of course other explanations my be possible, but this effect was predicted by Einstein's theory and subsequent observable evidence for this effect has shown it to be the most likely explanation.

 

[eburacum]

Einstein's theories are almost certainly wrong, just as Newton's theories are. That is, they are both right, but only within certain parameters. The theory to replace relativity hasn't been written yet, and when it is, it'll almost certainly be wrong too.