About Time

Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
About Time

 The original title of this article is "About Time, Motion and Mind"

Some of you people might not believe it from the mouth of a theist, but I highly respect the opponents in this forum.
So, I would like to discus Time with you guys Smiling

---

 

The definition of time which we use is:
“Non spatial continuum in which the events occur.”

My definition is:
“Time is the relation between two events in the continuum of events”
Time is relevant and limited to the events.
Each event has its place in the chain of events and does not depend on anything out of its cause.

In philosophical discussions I always introduce the idea about the hierarchy in the mind concepts.
Every mind concept appears in certain hierarchical order and by changing the hierarchy we end up with fallacy.

In this particular argument the time is placed before the events.
The definition of time IMPLIES that the events appear IN time, but it is actually the other way round – time is created as concept from the relation between two or more events.

My arguments:

1) Universe without events is Universe without time.

Some people will argue that there will be time although it will be impossible to measure it.
That would be fallacy.
We measure time with time which is actually event with event (circle around the sun with spins around the Earth axis)
The logical conclusion is that we cannot apply time to a motionless universe.

What is to MEASURE time? – it is to relate one event to another event.

I think that this is quite clear.

2) We need two or more events to have time as existing concept.
One event is insufficient for time creation.

To have “motion” we need universe with at least two objects.
To have “time” we need universe with at least two events.

If there is universe with one only object, that object can not show motion and cannot exist in time.
It can only exist as motionless in space.
The definition of time does not apply to such Universe.

If the Universe is created from two objects, which are moving away from each other, according to the definition of time we should have time, but how can we explain and how can we measure time in such universe?
In this case we can only claim that an event occurs in space, but not in time.

3) When you argue the above, do not refer to the already built mind concept of time.
- Have in mind, that you already have the time concept from at least two events in your life.
Note that your thinking is an event too.
- Do not use “speed” for proving “time”.
Speed (if we can talk about it in this case) is related to motion in such Universe.
If we have only two moving away from each other objects, speed has no use for time.
- Relation between to events is for example “the number of Earth spins in one circle around the sun”.
- Every time-measuring tool is “event”
- All events appear in space except the thought (the thinking).

Well, this is my idea about “time”.
Most probably I missed something, but that is why I put it on discussion Smiling

 


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
I will just point out that

I will just point out that treating the framework of the universe as space-time allowed significant leaps in physics, so, pragmatically, it should be treated as space-time and not space separate from time.  But, to be honest, I can't say too much else.  Time has always been a strange concept to me, but I think that the standard for measuring it is the speed of light, which has been found to be a universal constant.  As such, speed is important in the argument. 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: The original

Truden wrote:

 The original title of this article is "About Time, Motion and Mind"

Some of you people might not believe it from the mouth of a theist, but I highly respect the opponents in this forum.
So, I would like to discus Time with you guys Smiling

---

Ooh, yes please, I love this subject. Sticking out tongue

Truden wrote:

The definition of time which we use is:
“Non spatial continuum in which the events occur.”

I would agree that is the concept generally invoked by the word "time" in ordinary discussion. 

I personally consider this a purely psychological term, there is distinct lack of support for such a definition of time in the other scientific domains.

 

Quote:

My definition is:
“Time is the relation between two events in the continuum of events”
Time is relevant and limited to the events.
Each event has its place in the chain of events and does not depend on anything out of its cause.


I agree again. This is most definitely what scientific observation supports is the actual nature of what we experience as "time". 

Truden wrote:

In philosophical discussions I always introduce the idea about the hierarchy in the mind concepts.
Every mind concept appears in certain hierarchical order and by changing the hierarchy we end up with fallacy.

In this particular argument the time is placed before the events.
The definition of time IMPLIES that the events appear IN time, but it is actually the other way round – time is created as concept from the relation between two or more events.

I'm not entirely surely what you mean by this. Are you saying that you're going to demonstrate how "your" definition of time results in a fallacy due to the inversion of conceptual heirarchy?

Quote:

My arguments:

1) Universe without events is Universe without time.

I agree with the logic, this follows from your definition.

Quote:

Some people will argue that there will be time although it will be impossible to measure it.
That would be fallacy.
We measure time with time which is actually event with event (circle around the sun with spins around the Earth axis)
The logical conclusion is that we cannot apply time to a motionless universe.

What is to MEASURE time? – it is to relate one event to another event.

I think that this is quite clear.

No problem here, either, this also follows from your definition.

Truden wrote:

2) We need two or more events to have time as existing concept.
One event is insufficient for time creation.

To have “motion” we need universe with at least two objects.
To have “time” we need universe with at least two events.

I see a problem here -- In what way do you suppose there could be motion without events?

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


liberatedatheist
atheistScience Freak
liberatedatheist's picture
Posts: 137
Joined: 2009-12-08
User is offlineOffline
 I don't think there is

 I don't think there is anything wrong with what you are saying except maybe that you aren't taking it far enough. You don't even need two objects to have a sense of time. A single object rotating would allow for time to be measured. You don't even need objects; electromagnetic energy in motion would have a sense of time. As long as there is a single fundamental unit of matter or energy that is undergoing a change, time can hypothetically be measured.

I Am My God

The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I'm not entirely

Quote:
I'm not entirely surely what you mean by this. Are you saying that you're going to demonstrate how "your" definition of time results in a fallacy due to the inversion of conceptual heirarchy?

Sorry for the heaviness in my expression Smiling

I meant to say that the definition of time used by the science is built wrong, putting Time before the event.

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Ummmmmm

Truden wrote:

Quote:
I'm not entirely surely what you mean by this. Are you saying that you're going to demonstrate how "your" definition of time results in a fallacy due to the inversion of conceptual heirarchy?

Sorry for the heaviness in my expression Smiling

I meant to say that the definition of time used by the science is built wrong, putting Time before the event.

 

Are you making a point with this? That time began with the first event, perhaps?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
liberatedatheist wrote: I

liberatedatheist wrote:

 I don't think there is anything wrong with what you are saying except maybe that you aren't taking it far enough. You don't even need two objects to have a sense of time. A single object rotating would allow for time to be measured. 

A single object cannot  manifest motion even if it rotates .
Rotation is also motion and it need coordinate system as a second object in order to be registered as motion.

liberatedatheist wrote:
You don't even need objects; electromagnetic energy in motion would have a sense of time. As long as there is a single fundamental unit of matter or energy that is undergoing a change, time can hypothetically be measured.

The electromagnetic energy IS object, otherwise it wouldn't manifest motion.
It is true that any change can be measured, but you need second event to relate the change to.
So, here you come to my definition - you need to relate two or more events in order to measure Time.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Let's consider an analogue

Truden wrote:

liberatedatheist wrote:

 I don't think there is anything wrong with what you are saying except maybe that you aren't taking it far enough. You don't even need two objects to have a sense of time. A single object rotating would allow for time to be measured. 

A single object cannot  manifest motion even if it rotates .
Rotation is also motion and it need coordinate system as a second object in order to be registered as motion.

liberatedatheist wrote:
You don't even need objects; electromagnetic energy in motion would have a sense of time. As long as there is a single fundamental unit of matter or energy that is undergoing a change, time can hypothetically be measured.

The electromagnetic energy IS object, otherwise it wouldn't manifest motion.
It is true that any change can be measured, but you need second event to relate the change to.
So, here you come to my definition - you need to relate two or more events in order to measure Time.

 

Electrical waveform oscillating through 360 degrees. Surely it's possible to measure any 2 'events' on the waveform - the 1V peak-to-peak video signals in a coaxial cable, for example.

The term 'events' seems subjective in the context of your argument.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: Are

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Are you making a point with this? That time began with the first event, perhaps?

 

Well, that is the most obvious conclusion to make.
The think is, should we talk about Time or about chain of events.
Because if Time is relation between events, that relation doesn't matter unless it is observed.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
My intuition tells me that

My intuition tells me that time and gravity are connected, perhaps as different modalities of something akin to the Higgs field. But I don't really have any idea how to work that out in language, much less in equations.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Electrical waveform oscillating through 360 degrees. Surely it's possible to measure any 2 'events' on the waveform - the 1V peak-to-peak video signals in a coaxial cable, for example.

The term 'events' seems subjective in the context of your argument.

 

Of course you can measure any event if you know the speed, but you don't have speed unless you have time.

So, don't try to prove Time existence with speed.
Using Time measuring devise means to add one more object or event in the experiment.

Event is event and I don't understand how can you see it as subjective. What do you mean?


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:My intuition

Marquis wrote:

My intuition tells me that time and gravity are connected, perhaps as different modalities of something akin to the Higgs field. But I don't really have any idea how to work that out in language, much less in equations.

Time measuring tools are affected by the gravity, but that doesn't mean that time changes.
Two identical time measuring tools on the Moon and on the Earth will show different measuring values, but that doesn't mean that Time on the Moon runs different, because both Earth and Moon circle around the Sun with the same step.

Any argument on this matter will come to the point that Time is conscious perception, which will prove me right.
 


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:Event is

Truden wrote:

Event is event

 

Not necessarily. For instance, I think of spacetime-coordinated particles as "events", but they don't happen until there is "observation" (which is synonymous with "interaction" ). There are other problems as well, such as quantum entanglement (which seems to suggest an invalidation of time).

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:Marquis

Truden wrote:

Marquis wrote:

My intuition tells me that time and gravity are connected,

Time measuring tools are affected by the gravity, but that doesn't mean that time changes.

 

No, what I mean is that time and gravity is the same thing (at least to me).


 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Truden

Marquis wrote:

Truden wrote:

Event is event

 

Not necessarily. For instance, I think of spacetime-coordinated particles as "events", but they don't happen until there is "observation" (which is synonymous with "interaction" ). There are other problems as well, such as quantum entanglement (which seems to suggest an invalidation of time).

 

Since we are trying to evaluate Time with new definition, you should not use "spacetime" as an argument. According to the proposed definition Time does not exist out of our minds.
Then you will be left with a particle as an object in space Smiling
If you add another particle you could have event if there is motion.
Otherwise you would have tow objects in a space. 


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:According to

Truden wrote:
According to the proposed definition Time does not exist out of our minds.

 

That's just ridiculous. Count me out of this discussion then.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Truden

Marquis wrote:

Truden wrote:
According to the proposed definition Time does not exist out of our minds.

 

That's just ridiculous.

The it is very easy to prove me wrong.

Do it.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Let's go back to this quote

Truden wrote:

The electromagnetic energy IS object, otherwise it wouldn't manifest motion.
It is true that any change can be measured, but you need second event to relate the change to.
So, here you come to my definition - you need to relate two or more events in order to measure Time.

 

Here you call electricity an object but electro magnetic energy is a waveform. If electricity exists it does so as a self propagating wave with repetitive characteristics that can be measured. No additional event is required.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:
electro magnetic energy is a waveform

 

True. But it also has a carrier particle, the photon.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
what is time?

Truden wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Truden wrote:
According to the proposed definition Time does not exist out of our minds.

That's just ridiculous.

The it is very easy to prove me wrong.

Do it.

Time didn't exist before humans became aware of time?  Give me a break.  Are we now into "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it make a sound?"  Of course it did.  Sound waves were propagated regardless of the existence of a receptive body.  Time exists regardless of whether or not there are humans (or other critters) to observe or measure the passage of time.

Measurement involves three concepts - the observed, the observer and the method of measurement.  Existence involves one.  No measurement required.  No observation required.

Humans stuff time concepts into measurements since that is the easiest way to perceive time.  Sun rises, sun sets.  But the sun will rise and set without you or anyone or anything else to observe the passage of time as the earth rotates around the sun which rotates around the galaxy which rotates around the universe.  You and I are not important in the grand scheme of things.  Get over yourself.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:Quote:I'm not

Truden wrote:

Quote:
I'm not entirely surely what you mean by this. Are you saying that you're going to demonstrate how "your" definition of time results in a fallacy due to the inversion of conceptual heirarchy?

Sorry for the heaviness in my expression Smiling

I meant to say that the definition of time used by the science is built wrong, putting Time before the event.

 

Science essentially uses the second definition, Truden, as I already mentioned.

The first definition only really exists now as a remnant of the original form of certain postulates. Since relativity first upheaved our notions of the physical domain, basically all major scientific theories had to have been demonstrated to work independently of absolute time, and they do. 

The 'time' used by science is really no different to your second definition, modern science essentially considers time as synonymous with 'change'. 

The problem you're perceiving, I think you'll find, is not in science. It's in the fact that we incipiently define 'time' by our psychology but to consider the objective nature of time we need to step outside of our own psychology -- a very confusing notion.

Interestingly we can only really step outside our own psychology using the tools of science (ie mathematics and logic) so I would contend the opposite of your claim, Truden.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
 cj wrote:Time didn't exist

 

cj wrote:
Time didn't exist before humans became aware of time?  Give me a break.  Are we now into "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it make a sound?"  Of course it did.  Sound waves were propagated regardless of the existence of a receptive body. 

Lets put it more precisely - sound didn't exist before someone could perceive the vibrations which we call sound. 

 

cj wrote:
Measurement involves three concepts - the observed, the observer and the method of measurement.  Existence involves one.  No measurement required.  No observation required.

I think that you are very wrong.
Existence cannot be claimed before it is observed, otherwise we wouldn't have atheists.
The fact that we have concept for existence doesn't mean that existence does not need observation.

cj wrote:
Humans stuff time concepts into measurements since that is the easiest way to perceive time.

Also wrong.
You perceived Time before to learn how to measure it with clock.
Humans perceived Time before learning how to measure it, because to measure time is just to add one more event to the chain of events and observe it.
Otherwise said, we measure Time with Time and therefore we have to be capable of perceiving time in order to measure it.

And here we close the circle - to perceive Time is to observe and do the relation between to or more events.

 

 


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: The 'time'

Eloise wrote:

The 'time' used by science is really no different to your second definition, modern science essentially considers time as synonymous with 'change'. 

You may be right, Eloise.
Sometimes I have the feeling that Einstein made fun of the science by creating his theory of relativity to prove that everything is related to our conscious perception.
His theory doesn't make sense without intelligent conscious observation, which makes the whole theory ridiculous, since consciousness is not property of the Universe according to science.

Yes, modern science may use the notion "change" (or "step" ) as Time, but Time still stays in science as property of the Universe.
The two definitions cannot be in parallel use, because one opposes the other.
We either have Time as property of the Universe or Chain of Events which creates conscious perception called Time.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
chasing our tails

Truden wrote:

cj wrote:
Time didn't exist before humans became aware of time?  Give me a break.  Are we now into "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it make a sound?"  Of course it did.  Sound waves were propagated regardless of the existence of a receptive body. 

Lets put it more precisely - sound didn't exist before some one could perceive the vibrations which we call sound. 

Sound waves exist without measurement or observation.  That is why most "space opera" sci-fi movies drive me nuts during the spaceship chase scenes.  There is no sound in a vacuum.  Making funny noises while the ships swoop through space is just plain wrong.  There is ALWAYS sound in atmosphere.  It may not be perceived - someone may not have named it - but the vibrations are there.  Period.

Truden wrote:

cj wrote:
Measurement involves three concepts - the observed, the observer and the method of measurement.  Existence involves one.  No measurement required.  No observation required.

I think that you are very wrong.
Existence cannot be claimed before it is observed, otherwise we wouldn't have atheists.
The fact that we have concept for existence doesn't mean that existence does not need observation.

I figured you were going for some sort of theological point, but this is just nonsense.  If existence can not be claimed before it is observed, you have just proved god does not exist.  Since god is unobservable, s/he/it does not exist, QED.  At least, that must be your conclusion as I understand your statement.  And therefore, it is a wonder that everyone isn't an atheist.

Truden wrote:

cj wrote:
Humans stuff time concepts into measurements since that is the easiest way to perceive time.

Also wrong.
You perceived Time before to learn how to measure it with clock.
Humans perceived Time before learning how to measure it, because to measure time is just to add one more event to the chain of events and observe it.
Otherwise said, we measure Time with Time and therefore we have to be capable of perceiving time in order to measure it.

And here we close the circle - to perceive Time is to observe and do the relation between to or more events.

You don't need a clock to measure time.  You can measure time from the sun's movement, day and night cycles, seasons and stellar cycles.  Yes, our perception of time is the relationship between two or more events.  But our perception of time may not be the only way to perceive time.  And even if we don't perceive time, time still happens.  Our perceptions are irrelevant.

Let's cut to the chase.  I'll bet you are leading up to: a bunch of atheists have just agreed that an object need not be observed or measured, time need not be perceived in order for an object to exist in space and time.  Harry in Asia may exist, but I don't perceive him.  (His wife probably may be all too aware of his existence and most likely has opinions about it.)  So I have to take his existence on faith since I ain't there.

So why can't I take god's existence on faith?  S/he/it is supposed to be "here, there, everywhere".  But there is no evidence.  S/he/it is supposed to be "omnipotent, omniprescent, omnibenevolent, omniyounameit" but there is no evidence that such a being exists.  I can take ol' Harry's existence in Asia on faith because there are a lot of human beings in Asia.  I've seen pictures.  I have friends from Asia.  I've worked with people in Asia.  I have evidence.  There is evidence for atmospheric wave forms that we can demonstrate are perceived by those critters with special structures that capture those atmospheric pressure changes that we English speaking humans call "sound".  There is evidence for mightily small things like atoms, neutrons, electrons, quarks, etc.  We can conduct experiments that demonstrate consequences of their existence.  So having faith that these particles exist in some place not right next to me is not a very far stretch. 

There is no evidence for some supernatural being who gives a rat's ass about you, me or the lamp post.  No prayers are answered, nobody is healed, no miracles occur.  People delude themselves that praying for a cold will cure it.  Or drinking hot toddies.  Or hot lemon water, mustard plasters, vicks vapo-rub.  Or ignoring it will also usually work.  But the young man here in Oregon with a kidney blockage died even though his parents prayed fervently for his return to health.  There is a reason faith healers stick with headaches and backaches and invisible tumors.  Ever see one heal an amputee?  Didn't think so. 

Not enough evidence to get me to believe god/s/dess exists anywhere or anytime.  I am willing to believe objects exist without my observing them if there is a reasonable set of evidence that said objects exist somewhere.  Your definitions are too limited to be useful.  When you cling to them, it only makes me suspicious of your motives.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:modern science

Truden wrote:
modern science may use the notion "change" (or "step" ) as Time

 

Modern science sees "time" as indistinguishable from "space". It's a structural property.

As for "observation", it is a fallacy to see this as qualitatively different from "interaction".

In other words, observing "time" is a way of interacting with the world at large.

How we perceive "time" - as duration, relation, or as relative entaglement - has no bearing on time itself.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Sound waves exist

cj wrote:

Sound waves exist without measurement or observation.  That is why most "space opera" sci-fi movies drive me nuts during the spaceship chase scenes.  There is no sound in a vacuum.  Making funny noises while the ships swoop through space is just plain wrong.  There is ALWAYS sound in atmosphere.  It may not be perceived - someone may not have named it - but the vibrations are there.  Period.

Not "sound wave", my friend.
VIBRATIONS.

The point here is, that you use the "sound" word, because you can perceive certain vibrations which we, the perceivers, named "sound".
The same way, observing certain event relations we came up with the name "TIME".

I used the joke about the unobserved God just to show your inconsistent logic.
You don't believe that there is God, because you haven observed it.
In the scriptures you'll find many records for people who were in relations with God.
Yet, you still don't believe it, because you haven't observed it.
So, existence needs observation.
(The point is not whether there is or there is no God. God is just an example here.)

It is scientific axiom that existence needs observation.
Otherwise we call it prediction or theory (about existence)

cj wrote:

Let's cut to the chase.  I'll bet you are leading up to: a bunch of atheists have just agreed that an object need not be observed or measured, time need not be perceived in order for an object to exist in space and time.

Not at all.
You got me wrong here.
This discussion is about Time, and let stick to it, please.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Truden

Marquis wrote:

Truden wrote:
modern science may use the notion "change" (or "step" ) as Time

 

Modern science sees "time" as indistinguishable from "space". It's a structural property.

 

That's exactly the point of the fallacy 
We have EVENTS that form Space and Time as concepts.

Before there was Time and Space, there was an event (The Big Bang).
So everything starts from the EVENT, neither from the Space, nor from the Time.

Time is possible as concept only through the Event.
Time is not a property.
It is result.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:Before there

Truden wrote:

 

Before there was Time and Space, there was an event (The Big Bang).

 

Are you sure you want to go there?

OK, let's say that time (gravity) is the relation between events (physical bodies).

What, then, constitutes the "stretching" of this relation? An observer effect?

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Truden

Marquis wrote:

Truden wrote:

 

Before there was Time and Space, there was an event (The Big Bang).

 

Are you sure you want to go there?

No, I'm just referring to an accepted theory, in order to make my point more clear and understandable.
If it confuses you, I can drop it without damaging my idea.

Marquis wrote:

OK, let's say that time (gravity) is the relation between events (physical bodies).

What, then, constitutes the "stretching" of this relation? An observer effect?

First of all, I don't see how gravity can be used as synonym for "time", but in this case it doesn't affect the answer.
All definitions are supposed to explain known (observed) events, subjects or objects.

And the answer to your question is:
We don't have definitions for something that we haven't observed.
In that regard, observation constitutes everything, including the relations between events.
In our case we observe event relations and based on that WE CREATED TIME the same way as we created sound from observing vibrations and "sweet" by observing the taste.
There is no "sweet" and "sower" but for the one who taste it and it all depends on the perceptions
It is personal point of view.
It is not constant.
It is result from the relation between you and the object, or the event.

It all comes down to interrelation between consciousness and Universe

Yes, I'm telling you that before Consciousness "sweet" and Time did not exist.
If there was something before Consciousness it could be defined as "chain of events".


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:It all comes

Truden wrote:

It all comes down to interrelation between consciousness and Universe

 

Right. So what you are saying is that there's a hidden agenda. How very fucking surprising.

You are in fact not trying to discuss time at all, you are trying to make a point about consciousness.

FFS, why don't you just say so then?

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Truden

Marquis wrote:

Truden wrote:

It all comes down to interrelation between consciousness and Universe

 

Right. So what you are saying is that there's a hidden agenda. How very fucking surprising.

You are in fact not trying to discuss time at all, you are trying to make a point about consciousness.

FFS, why don't you just say so then?

 

You have a communication problem, Marquis.


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:You have a

Truden wrote:

You have a communication problem, Marquis.

And you, Truden, have yet to make a point.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
So what happens when we

So what happens when we reach zero Kelvin?  Doesn't all motion stop?

If this is the case, then time is simply a construct of pure existence.  In that sense, time is the relation of something existing at some spot and not existing at another.  So at zero kelvin, there is no motion...no events.  However, at a specific point, object x exists at point a and not point b.  Move to another point in time, object x exists at point a and not at point b.  There is no event...simply an existence at a specific moment in relation to two different points.

And if that is the case, then something cannot exist out of the context of time.

And if you can have infinite time, then you can have infinite existence, which would lead to the possibility of the universe always existing.  No need for any form of creation.

What I am unsure of is whether something can exist without any form of motion (in K=0).  Or would it collapse on itself?

I think there are others in this forum that could answer this better.

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
geirj wrote: Truden wrote:

geirj wrote:

Truden wrote:

You have a communication problem, Marquis.

And you, Truden, have yet to make a point.

OK, lets try it again.
I'll refine my definition a little (without changing its value) to make it clearer and easy understandable:

"The relations between two or more events we call Time"

So if I have to make my point, it is in the above definition.
Our perception of the relations between the events is what we call Time.
Which gives Time a perceptive value.
That doesn't change practicality.
It only changes scientific theories.

My definition treats Time not as a property with absolute value, but as attached value, which is a result from the interrelation between Consciousness and Universe.
That value is not any different from "sweet" or "far".

Few comments above I said that observation constitutes everything.
It is very difficult to comprehend that observation constitutes existence.
Fortunately it is not that difficult to apply this idea to Time because it is self evident and unarguable with the provided definition.

Very often in my attempts to prove that Consciousness is property of the Universe, people accuse me in philosophizing.
The above is not philosophy but logic.
Science deals with logic.

I'm not saying that scientists are stupid, not to seeing that Time has perceptive value.
They wasn't careful enough to use the proper hierarchy when structuring their logic.
It is the inconsistency of the mind, not applying itself in the concepts, built by it, for its own use.
(The mind fails to see that "observation" constitutes the "relations" and doesn't see itself as constitutor of Time)

Most of you in this forum are scientists and students in science.
Take a note and correct your understanding.
That will help science to reach higher in much shorter "time" Laughing out loud
 


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:geirj

Truden wrote:

geirj wrote:

Truden wrote:

You have a communication problem, Marquis.

And you, Truden, have yet to make a point.

OK, lets try it again.
I'll refine my definition a little (without changing its value) to make it clearer and easy understandable:

"The relations between two or more events we call Time"

So if I have to make my point, it is in the above definition.
Our perception of the relations between the events is what we call Time.
Which gives Time a perceptive value.
That doesn't change practicality.
It only changes scientific theories.

My definition treats Time not as a property with absolute value, but as attached value, which is a result from the interrelation between Consciousness and Universe.
That value is not any different from "sweet" or "far".

Few comments above I said that observation constitutes everything.
It is very difficult to comprehend that observation constitutes existence.
Fortunately it is not that difficult to apply this idea to Time because it is self evident and unarguable with the provided definition.

Very often in my attempts to prove that Consciousness is property of the Universe, people accuse me in philosophizing.
The above is not philosophy but logic.
Science deals with logic.

I'm not saying that scientists are stupid, not to seeing that Time has perceptive value.
They wasn't careful enough to use the proper hierarchy when structuring their logic.
It is the inconsistency of the mind, not applying itself in the concepts, built by it, for its own use.
(The mind fails to see that "observation" constitutes the "relations" and doesn't see itself as constitutor of Time)

Most of you in this forum are scientists and students in science.
Take a note and correct your understanding.
That will help science to reach higher in much shorter "time" Laughing out loud
 

Couple of comments here:

You say that time, by your definition, is perceptive in value, not absolute.  The problem is that Time is both perceptive and absolute. 

Consider the word height.  It has a perceptive value, in that I can be called tall in relation to other humans.  I also have an absolute value, that being 6 feet, 3 inches.  Both values are correct.   The absolute value is an accepted value that has a standard that we use, while perceptive is in relation to the person making the statement.  This is why science uses absolute values; it allows other scientists to test, verify, and peer review.  To say that when a certain chemical reaction happens, the result is 37 degrees celcius with a variance of +-2 degrees allows to further the evidentiary procedure.  Simply saying the reaction is "hot" doesn't really work in scientific terms.

By using the absolute value of time, we can then test and verify.  Not really useful if all we said was "the result takes a while".

Observation alone does not constitute existence, but in order to make the claim of existence, one must have some cooberation of evidence that shows the existence is true.  Otherwise, whether true or not, the claim must be assumed false.  You can say "Bud Fudlacker exists", and I would ask "OK, what evidence do you have for his existence?"  You could produce a mound of evidence that woudl show that Bud Fudlacker indeed exists, and therefore I would then either accept the evidence to be reasonable, suspend judgement, or say that the evidence is insufficient and reject the claim.  Does that make you a liar?  No, but I must still reject the claim.

As for consciousness being a property of the universe, it would depend on how we define property.  Do you mean that it is ever present, like matter and energy?  If so, then I would say no, as it it is dependent upon a living mind.  I would accept that consciousness is a dependent element that exists in the universe, but that it depends on a living mind in order to exist.  Once all life ceased in the universe, that element would also cease to exist.

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
kidvelvet wrote:You say that

kidvelvet wrote:

You say that time, by your definition, is perceptive in value, not absolute.  The problem is that Time is both perceptive and absolute. 

Well, they don't go both together.
"Perceptive" depends on the mind, while "absolute" depends on the cause.
ABSOLUTE is the chain of events, because it depends on the cause.
PERCEPTIVE is the relations between the events, because it depends on our observation. (Observation constitutes the relations)

So we deal with independent from the mind events.
Our perception of the relations between the events is what we call Time.

To help you understand my idea I'll relate it to the "sweet".
The chemical structure does not contain "sweet", unless perceived by the mind as the taste, called by us "sweet".

Without observation there is pure chemical structure without taste.
Without observation there is chain of events without Time.
 


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
kidvelvet wrote:As for

kidvelvet wrote:

As for consciousness being a property of the universe, it would depend on how we define property.  Do you mean that it is ever present, like matter and energy?

I missed the importance of this question and didn't include it in my previous answer.
Sorry about that.

We cannot know what the Universe was in the past if we don't know what it is in the present.
For that matter, we must not confuse ourselves with questions like the above.
Such kind of questions tend to twist the understanding about the present Universe in order to fit our knowledge in its past.

A definition put in few words, unarguably shows that Time is mind creation (perceptive value).
That should be enough to tell us that NOW the Universe IS chain of events, observed by Consciousness. It is compound of Space, motional matter and observing Consciousness.

People need time to comprehend the above and more time to accept it.
And only then we will separate the absolute values from the perceptive values, and that will help us to know what was the Universe in the past.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
jeeze

Truden wrote:

kidvelvet wrote:

You say that time, by your definition, is perceptive in value, not absolute.  The problem is that Time is both perceptive and absolute. 

Well, they don't go both together.
"Perceptive" depends on the mind, while "absolute" depends on the cause.
ABSOLUTE is the chain of events, because it depends on the cause.
PERCEPTIVE is the relations between the events, because it depends on our observation. (Observation constitutes the relations)

So we deal with independent from the mind events.
Our perception of the relations between the events is what we call Time.

To help you understand my idea I'll relate it to the "sweet".
The chemical structure does not contain "sweet", unless perceived by the mind as the taste, called by us "sweet".

Without observation there is pure chemical structure without taste.
Without observation there is chain of events without Time.

I beg to differ.  "Sweet" is a particular molecular structure that interfaces with the "sweet" receptors on our tongues.  We don't have to perceive "sweet" for that particular molecular structure to be present in the environment.  No humans required - again.  Sure, English speaking humans have labeled that particular set of experiences "tastes sweet", but that is only a linguistic shortcut.  And there are some poor people who can not experience "sweet" because they lack the proper receptors.  They may not have the experience of "sweet", but that doesn't mean "sweet" does not exist.

And no one has to observe events for time to occur.  No one has to determine the time between events for time to occur.  The labels we humans come up with are for our convenience.  The earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago.  Instead of earth years, which are not very precise, we could have used sun years or universe years or "quargles".  The chain of events occurred in a sequence of time that was not measured at the time, but can be estimated now, using a system of measuring time that is understood by those of us living on planet earth.

My question is, which planet are you on?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I beg to differ. 

cj wrote:

I beg to differ.  "Sweet" is a particular molecular structure that interfaces with the "sweet" receptors on our tongues.  We don't have to perceive "sweet" for that particular molecular structure to be present in the environment.  No humans required - again.  Sure, English speaking humans have labeled that particular set of experiences "tastes sweet", but that is only a linguistic shortcut.  And there are some poor people who can not experience "sweet" because they lack the proper receptors.  They may not have the experience of "sweet", but that doesn't mean "sweet" does not exist.

And no one has to observe events for time to occur.  No one has to determine the time between events for time to occur.  The labels we humans come up with are for our convenience.  The earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago.  Instead of earth years, which are not very precise, we could have used sun years or universe years or "quargles".  The chain of events occurred in a sequence of time that was not measured at the time, but can be estimated now, using a system of measuring time that is understood by those of us living on planet earth.

My question is, which planet are you on?

O, come ooon...
I'm tired of such thinking and bored to death.
It is a simple logic to conclude that "sweet" is RESULT of observation.
Sweet for whom?
For those that have the proper receptors.
It is dependable value.

Same is with Time.
The chain of events exists independent of you, but Time depends on your observation over the relations between the events.

No much to be said and argued about that.


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:cj wrote:I beg

Truden wrote:

cj wrote:

I beg to differ.  "Sweet" is a particular molecular structure that interfaces with the "sweet" receptors on our tongues.  We don't have to perceive "sweet" for that particular molecular structure to be present in the environment.  No humans required - again.  Sure, English speaking humans have labeled that particular set of experiences "tastes sweet", but that is only a linguistic shortcut.  And there are some poor people who can not experience "sweet" because they lack the proper receptors.  They may not have the experience of "sweet", but that doesn't mean "sweet" does not exist.

And no one has to observe events for time to occur.  No one has to determine the time between events for time to occur.  The labels we humans come up with are for our convenience.  The earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago.  Instead of earth years, which are not very precise, we could have used sun years or universe years or "quargles".  The chain of events occurred in a sequence of time that was not measured at the time, but can be estimated now, using a system of measuring time that is understood by those of us living on planet earth.

My question is, which planet are you on?

O, come ooon...
I'm tired of such thinking and bored to death.
It is a simple logic to conclude that "sweet" is RESULT of observation.
Sweet for whom?
For those that have the proper receptors.
It is dependable value.

Same is with Time.
The chain of events exists independent of you, but Time depends on your observation over the relations between the events.

No much to be said and argued about that.

Time is unlike "sweet" in that it can have an absolute value.  When we agree upon the length, those lengths then have value, just like height.

Observations are not necessary for time to exist.  That is simply a naked assertion.

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
kidvelvet wrote:Time is

kidvelvet wrote:

Time is unlike "sweet" in that it can have an absolute value.  When we agree upon the length, those lengths then have value, just like height.

Observations are not necessary for time to exist.  That is simply a naked assertion.

It is not naked assertion, because I provided definition, discussion on the definition and all the arguments on it.
Now, read the definition, follow the points in my comments and argue on them.
Don't throw on me naked statements.

Just because we created measuring tool, to measure the relations between two events, doesn't mean that this tool measures absolute value.
The measuring tool is only additionaly created event which we relate to the events in our life.
Kind of: all events in our working day must be equal to eight circles of the clock 28,000 standardized counts out. It could as well be 14,000 or 56,000 but they will always be related to the relation between Earth spins and its circle around the Sun. Even the clocks based on atomic resonance frequency standard are measuring that Earth-Son relation.
The main point is, that all measuring tools are events, which WE RELATE to another events, and since relation needs observation it has perceptive value.

Now, let me give you an advise, please.
If you want to argue my explanation about Time, please start from the definition.
Don't argue my comments on your fallacy, because you stand the risk to get out of the context and lose the point.

 


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:kidvelvet

Truden wrote:

kidvelvet wrote:

Time is unlike "sweet" in that it can have an absolute value.  When we agree upon the length, those lengths then have value, just like height.

Observations are not necessary for time to exist.  That is simply a naked assertion.

It is not naked assertion, because I provided definition, discussion on the definition and all the arguments on it.
Now, read the definition, follow the points in my comments and argue on them.
Don't throw on me naked statements.

Just because we created measuring tool, to measure the relations between two events, doesn't mean that this tool measures absolute value.
The measuring tool is only additionaly created event which we relate to the events in our life.
Kind of: all events in our working day must be equal to eight circles of the clock 28,000 standardized counts out. It could as well be 14,000 or 56,000 but they will always be related to the relation between Earth spins and its circle around the Sun. Even the clocks based on atomic resonance frequency standard are measuring that Earth-Son relation.
The main point is, that all measuring tools are events, which WE RELATE to another events, and since relation needs observation it has perceptive value.

Now, let me give you an advise, please.
If you want to argue my explanation about Time, please start from the definition.
Don't argue my comments on your fallacy, because you stand the risk to get out of the context and lose the point.

 

Thank you for the advice, but your definition isn't something we ever agreed upon.   Because of this, your definition is, by default, a naked assertion.  You claim that time is based on a relation to events.  I disagree, and say that it is based on existence, not events.   In fact, existence *only* makes sense in relation to time.

As I stated earlier, existence only makes sense when you talk about object x in relation to point a.  Something cannot both exist and not exist at point a at the same time.  Existence is only relevant when talking about time.

And you seem to misconstrue absolute value with perceptive value.  Absolute value *means* it is measurable.  While the basis of measurement may be random, it doesn't mean that the general accepted measurement is random or folly.  We made the measurement based on our rotation around the sun, but that didn't need to be the case.  Just as length could be based on anything, the SAE has a strict standard on what is 1 inch, 1 yard, 1 mile, etc.  We measure weight based on the weight of a specific amount of water.  We can base the amount of sugar in a dish on grams, teaspoons, etc.  However, sweet is only perceptive.  In other words, we can say that a cup of water contains 1 gram of sugar, and we can therefore have quantitative values, but we don't have a quatitative value of how sweet something is, as that same cup of water with 1 gram of sugar may taste sweet to one person and not very sweet to another. 

Time has both a qualitative value (long, short, a while, a moment), but it also has a quantitative value (seconds, minutes, hours).  Without the quantitative value, we have no way of doing radioactive dating in relation to the quantitative value of carbon or potassium.

Your assertion also does not say anything about a 0 kelvin environment.  Imagine the universe at some point in time having the temperature of 0 kelvin.  While the universe is in that state, there are no events.  But there is still existence.  So, the universe exists without any motion...no events.  But it would still make sense to say that the universe was at 0 kelvin for 15 minutes because we have defined what a second and a minute is.  No perception necessary. 

The other problem with perception is that if it must be observed, then time didn't exist before I was born.  I wasn't around to observe it, so time didn't exist.  Yet, all this evidence of past events shows a strong reason to believe the contrary.

This is why, applying Occams Razor, it makes more sense that the universe always existed, as did time.  It just existed in a different state, possibly a zero kelvin state.  To add any form of creation simply adds an unnecessary step.

Am I right?  Possibly.  But the overall point is that there is reason to believe that your definition is incorrect, therefore a naked assertion.

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
kidvelvet wrote:Thank you

 

kidvelvet wrote:

Thank you for the advice, but your definition isn't something we ever agreed upon.   Because of this, your definition is, by default, a naked assertion.  You claim that time is based on a relation to events.  I disagree, and say that it is based on existence, not events.

You should take my advice and comment on the definition, my friend.

I think (in fact I am sure) that you don't have even a tiny idea about concepts like "event" and "relation".
You are not even close to the idea how mind works and how concepts are created.
And I am sorry to see that you don't understand what I mean by "hierarchy in the logical construction" .

Sorry kid, but I don't think you can contribute much in this discussion.   I appreciate your interest and efforts, and I thank You for that.

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
A few comments:Time does not

A few comments:

Time does not have an absolute value. (see Einstein)

The time interval between two events which are not co-incident in space is relative to their relative velocity, acceleration, and the local gravitational field. Even which one came first may be relative to the observer, depending on the circumstances.

Sound, defined as variations in air pressure of a frequency and intensity that we perceive as an auditory sensation, exists independently of any listener.

Sound, as transmitted through the air, is NOT really vibration, although vibrating objects can generate it, and it can cause objects to vibrate. It is variations in pressure propagating as wave through the air.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:A few

BobSpence1 wrote:

A few comments:

Time does not have an absolute value. (see Einstein)

The time interval between two events which are not co-incident in space is relative to their relative velocity, acceleration, and the local gravitational field. Even which one came first may be relative to the observer, depending on the circumstances.

Sound, defined as variations in air pressure of a frequency and intensity that we perceive as an auditory sensation, exists independently of any listener.

Sound, as transmitted through the air, is NOT really vibration, although vibrating objects can generate it, and it can cause objects to vibrate. It is variations in pressure propagating as wave through the air.

 

Bob, I'm glad to see you in the discussion, but please, take your time before commenting on this topic Eye-wink

Now, note that we are discussing the Time, on which Einstein built his THEORY.
That THEORY might not be relevant to the idea of Time which I propose, so drop it until you prove me wrong.

Now, about SOUND - it is a word for the perception we have about certain range of vibrations. And that includes air vibrations as well.
Of course the air may have different pressure, but not the pressure vibrates, eh :D 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:BobSpence1

Truden wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

A few comments:

Time does not have an absolute value. (see Einstein)

The time interval between two events which are not co-incident in space is relative to their relative velocity, acceleration, and the local gravitational field. Even which one came first may be relative to the observer, depending on the circumstances.

Sound, defined as variations in air pressure of a frequency and intensity that we perceive as an auditory sensation, exists independently of any listener.

Sound, as transmitted through the air, is NOT really vibration, although vibrating objects can generate it, and it can cause objects to vibrate. It is variations in pressure propagating as wave through the air.

Bob, I'm glad to see you in the discussion, but please, take your time before commenting on this topic Eye-wink

Now, note that we are discussing the Time, on which Einstein built his THEORY.
That THEORY might not be relevant to the idea of Time which I propose, so drop it until you prove me wrong.

Einstein's THEORY is a well-tested model of how time works, yours will have to be consistent with his to merit consideration. If you don't take that into account, YOU are obliged to "drop it".

So, for example, if in your untested HYPOTHESIS you consider it is possible to describe two events as occurring simultaneously, in some absolute sense, when they at not at the same location in space, or that you can identify an absolute time interval between them, then you are simply wrong, and need to address that in the context of General and Special Relativity.

Quote:

Now, about SOUND - it is a word for the perception we have about certain range of vibrations. And that includes air vibrations as well.
Of course the air may have different pressure, but not the pressure vibrates, eh :D 

That last sentence doesn't quite make sense, I assume English is not your first language.

Sound is the word we use for travelling pressure waves in air or water, normally, (not "air as well", mainly air), AND for the sensation they generate when they cause our eardrums to vibrate. The pressure does not vibrate, 'oscillate' would be a better word. Vibrate normally applies to a solid object moving back and forth rapidly. The air does have a varying pressure, as the sound waves pass through it. As part of this, the air molecules have a back-and-forth movement added to their normal basic random motion. We can hear sounds conducted to the bones of our skull through solid objects as well, of course, but that is not the usual way sounds get to our ear canals.

We describe sound as 'travelling', airplane break the sound barrier, etc, which don't make sense if you only use the word in the perceptual sense.

If you are going to successfully describe an idea with some unusual and/or subtle concepts, you have to very clear and careful about words and concepts, especially words with more than one meaning and usage.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
 Bob, Einstein's theory is

 Bob, Einstein's theory is tested (I don't think "very well" ) against the present definition of Time.
If you think about it, you'll find out that the "RELATIVITY" word applies ONLY to observing consciousness.
In that sense, relating Time to our conscious observation, which depends on our speed, does not add much to the idea that  Time is value independent from the consciousness.

Any way, simply put, Einstein's theory of relativity might be wrong, if uses wrong definition about Time.

About SOUND: it is correct that my first language is not English, but in such cases it helps me not to be caught by deceivingly used common expressions.
PRESSURE is the weight applied by the air column above.
We may use (in all languages) the expression "pressure wave", but that is inaccurate expression when explaining "vibration" as notion.
So I have to use your words on you: If you are going to successfully describe an idea with some unusual and/or subtle concepts, you have to very clear and careful about words and concepts.

And now, let's go back to the discussion.
Read my article from the beginning and comment on it if you want to prove it wrong.

I understand the difficulty to refute such simple definition, but trying to reject it by telling me why the other definition is right, will not do any good and that is not the way of having such discussion.
 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: Bob,

Truden wrote:

 Bob, Einstein's theory is tested (I don't think "very well" ) against the present definition of Time.
If you think about it, you'll find out that the "RELATIVITY" word applies ONLY to observing consciousness.

It has been tested against reality, in cases involving the time it takes for light and radio waves take to travel a known distance. If what you are talking about is not relevant to Einstein's theories, it is not what anyone would call time.

And it does NOT require a conscious observer - you may be confusing it with Quantum Mechanics, which can be interpreted to involve a conscious observer, but even there it is really a misunderstanding..

It effects the tuning of particle accelerator, depending purely on the speed of the particles relative to the earth's surface. No observer required.

Do you actually understanding any of the science involved here??

Quote:

In that sense, relating Time to our conscious observation, which depends on our speed, does not add much to the idea that  Time is value independent from the consciousness.

Any way, simply put, Einstein's theory of relativity might be wrong, if uses wrong definition about Time.

To repeat, Einstein's has been tested against reality. It works.

What does your theory say as distinct from Einstein?

If the OP is your theory, it seems entirely unremarkable, except for the assertion that if all you have is two objects moving away from each other, we have no way to even measure time, because we have no 'events'.

We can make a physical measuring stick, make as many copies as we like, and use them to note when the distance between the objects is equal to 1, the 2, then 3, etc, lengths of our basic measure. There we have as many events as we need. If you want to eliminate any other objects, we can time the bouncing of light or radio waves from one to the other.

No real problem.

What are you trying to prove?

Quote:

About SOUND: it is correct that my first language is not English, but in such cases it helps me not to be caught by deceivingly used common expressions.
PRESSURE is the weight applied by the air column above.
We may use (in all languages) the expression "pressure wave", but that is inaccurate expression when explaining "vibration" as notion.
So I have to use your words on you: If you are going to successfully describe an idea with some unusual and/or subtle concepts, you have to very clear and careful about words and concepts.

Pressure is the force exerted by the air molecules bouncing off a solid surface, and can by measured when the surface is something like a piston sliding in a cylinder agains the force of a spring, or perhaps the net force exerted on the inside surfaces of a coiled hollow metal spring tending to straighten it, in another common design of pressure gauge.

Sound is a pressure wave.

From Wiki:

Quote:

Longitudinal sound waves are waves of alternating pressure deviations from the equilibrium pressure, causing local regions of compression and rarefaction.

Note: sound waves in air are longitudinal.

You still seem to be misinformed.

Quote:


And now, let's go back to the discussion.
Read my article from the beginning and comment on it if you want to prove it wrong.

I understand the difficulty to refute such simple definition, but trying to reject it by telling me why the other definition is right, will not do any good and that is not the way of having such discussion.
 

 

I can point to as many definitions as you want, they will all say basically the same thing.

You are trying to make empty points about subjects you are quite ignorant of. Sorry.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:It has been

BobSpence1 wrote:

It has been tested against reality, in cases involving the time it takes for light and radio waves take to travel a known distance. If what you are talking about is not relevant to Einstein's theories, it is not what anyone would call time.

And it does NOT require a conscious observer - you may be confusing it with Quantum Mechanics, which can be interpreted to involve a conscious observer, but even there it is really a misunderstanding..

It effects the tuning of particle accelerator, depending purely on the speed of the particles relative to the earth's surface. No observer required.

Do you actually understanding any of the science involved here??

I'm referring to consequences related to the theory, like the one where two simultaneous events may not be simultaneous for an observer in relative motion.
This implies different running time, which in fact supports my explanation of Time as perceptive value.


Quote:
What does your theory say as distinct from Einstein?


Well, if I have to compare "my theory" with Einstein's theory, I'd say that they have very much in common, except for the part where Time in my theory is treated as perceptive value (feeling created in observation)

Here I'd like to emphasize again on the ABSOLUTE and PERCEPTIVE values in the Universe.
ABSOLUTE values are those that depend on their cause.
PERCEPTIVE values are those that are created by our mind and therefore dependent on it.
In that respect, the Earth spinning and moving around the Son is an event dependent on its cause. It will exists regardless of our observation.
The relation between these two events is perceived by the mind and called Time. TIME has perceptive value.

Quote:
We can make a physical measuring stick, make as many copies as we like, and use them to note when the distance between the objects is equal to 1, the 2, then 3, etc, lengths of our basic measure. There we have as many events as we need. If you want to eliminate any other objects, we can time the bouncing of light or radio waves from one to the other.

Aaaam... you seam not to understand the concept of the so called though experiment.
You can have only what is given in the experiment and try to establish time without changing anything.
Why would you need sticks if you can simply use clock 

 

Quote:
Sound is a pressure wave.

I'd add, "with certain frequency", just to make sure that the students will know that not all pressure waves are herd as sound.
The pressure wave has it cause and it will exist independent of us. It will be sound only if it can be perceived as such, which gives the sound perceptive value.

I hope that now you understand much better the concept behind my idea.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:BobSpence1

Truden wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

It has been tested against reality, in cases involving the time it takes for light and radio waves take to travel a known distance. If what you are talking about is not relevant to Einstein's theories, it is not what anyone would call time.

And it does NOT require a conscious observer - you may be confusing it with Quantum Mechanics, which can be interpreted to involve a conscious observer, but even there it is really a misunderstanding..

It effects the tuning of particle accelerator, depending purely on the speed of the particles relative to the earth's surface. No observer required.

Do you actually understanding any of the science involved here??

I'm referring to consequences related to the theory, like the one where two simultaneous events may not be simultaneous for an observer in relative motion.
This implies different running time, which in fact supports my explanation of Time as perceptive value.

You are simply mistaken here. Einstein 's theory is NOT dependant on a conscious observer. Exactly the same phenomena would be recorded by instruments. The time does indeed run differently for everything in the two locations. Clocks will tick at different rates, radioactive atoms will decay at different rates. The theory is applied in the design of GPS systems to correct for the effect of the orbital motion and different level of gravity experienced by GPS satellites relative to the receivers on Earth. It is NOT just our perception - the difference in rate of time passing is as real as anything else. It shows up in the received frequency from the satellites being different from what we know they are set to transmit, which needs to be adjusted for in the actual circuitry and programming in the GPS sets to get accurate position readings. Not in our brains, note, in the physical devices.

Time really is passing differently for us and the satellites, not just our perception of it - of course the difference is way too small for us to actually perceive it, but it is real and physically measureable.

Quote:


Quote:
What does your theory say as distinct from Einstein?


Well, if I have to compare "my theory" with Einstein's theory, I'd say that they have very much in common, except for the part where Time in my theory is treated as perceptive value (feeling created in observation)

Here I'd like to emphasize again on the ABSOLUTE and PERCEPTIVE values in the Universe.
ABSOLUTE values are those that depend on their cause.
PERCEPTIVE values are those that are created by our mind and therefore dependent on it.
In that respect, the Earth spinning and moving around the Son is an event dependent on its cause. It will exists regardless of our observation.
The relation between these two events is perceived by the mind and called Time. TIME has perceptive value.

Quote:
We can make a physical measuring stick, make as many copies as we like, and use them to note when the distance between the objects is equal to 1, the 2, then 3, etc, lengths of our basic measure. There we have as many events as we need. If you want to eliminate any other objects, we can time the bouncing of light or radio waves from one to the other.

Aaaam... you seam not to understand the concept of the so called though experiment.
You can have only what is given in the experiment and try to establish time without changing anything.
Why would you need sticks if you can simply use clock 

I realize that, that should have been obvious from reading my response.

Are you really saying that not having any physical way of estimating the passage of time in a universe with only two non-colliding objects would have some actual significance??

Quote:

Quote:
Sound is a pressure wave.

I'd add, "with certain frequency", just to make sure that the students will know that not all pressure waves are herd as sound.
The pressure wave has it cause and it will exist independent of us. It will be sound only if it can be perceived as such, which gives the sound perceptive value.

I hope that now you understand much better the concept behind my idea.

Your time idea is an empty triviality based on a total misunderstanding of the science involved.

I hope you may come to really understand the nature of time, but I am not going to hold my breath waiting, since you do seem to get stubbornly attached to your odd little theories.

At least you seemed to have changed your description of sound from the way you had it in the first response I read, so as to better match my description. Thank you for correcting that error at least. Maybe their is hope for you to achieve scientific 'enlightenment' yet..

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Of course, if you want to

Of course, if you want to discuss the truly subjective experience of the rate we feel time passing, that is dependent on many psychological factors as well as what movement and events are occurring in our visible environment. A completely separate topic from any physical theory of Time, the differences being far greater than any objective measure will show, far greater than occur due to Relativistic effects in the range of speeds and gravitational intensities we normally experience, and different for each individual even at the exact same location.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology