Truden
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
Offline

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

---

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

Truden
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
Offline
BobSpence1 wrote:You are

BobSpence1 wrote:

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.

The difference in the time measuring tools on the GPS satellites and Earth comes from the difference in the gravity.
The experiment with the two aircrafts, traveling in opposite directions around the earth should measure not only the time, but the gravity as well. Because it is very logical to assume that the gravity on them will be different.
It is easy to predict that the gravity on these two airplanes will change proportionally with the difference between the time measuring tools.

Before such experiment is done, we cannot claim that simultaneous events can be seen different due to relative speed.
(The relative speed can change the perception of a length and it can be even recored but that is the same like when blue color changes under yellow light (it can also be recorded).
The fact is that the object does not change its color. It is the perception that changes.)

And by the way, if you take in account my idea about the absolute and perceptive universal values, you'll see that Speed is based on the perceptive value of Time, and cannot have absolute value, like Einstein's claim about the speed of light.

Quote:
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??

I cannot think of greater significance than the fact that we cannot measure Time (since we use Time to measure Time). Are you saying that this is not significant at all !?

Quote:

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..

Definition of SoundVibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.

I agreed with your definition because it doesn't change the subject of my argument - sound is vibrations or "pressure wave" (if you like it better) with certain frequencies.
Which supports my idea that SOUND has perceptive value.

---

I understand the embarrassment of woodworker showing your logical fallacy, but it would be even more embarrassing one day to find out that the woodworker was right and you were calling him fool.
Intelligent people know that "ad hominem" argument can easily  turn against you.

And just to remind you that you still haven't comment the points in my article.
Why do you think that Time is not the relation between two or more events?
Why do you think that we cannot measure Time in my thought experiments, even in the one in which we have an event?

cj
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
Offline
Thanks, Bob.

Thanks, Bob.

BobSpence
Posts: 5926
Joined: 2006-02-14
Offline
Truden wrote:BobSpence1

Truden wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

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.

The difference in the time measuring tools on the GPS satellites and Earth comes from the difference in the gravity.

Not just the gravity difference:

Wikipedia wrote:

Special relativity predicts that the frequency of the atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground clocks by a factor of $\frac{v^{2}}{2c^{2}}\approx 10 ^{-10}$, or result in a delay of about 7 μs/day, where the orbital velocity is v = 4 km/s, and c = the speed of light. The time dilation effect has been measured and verified using the GPS system.

The effect of gravitational frequency shift on the GPS system due to general relativity is that a clock closer to a massive object will be slower than a clock farther away. Applied to the GPS system, the receivers are much closer to Earth than the satellites, causing the GPS clocks to be faster by a factor of 5×10^(-10), or about 45.9 μs/day. This gravitational frequency shift is also a noticeable effect

Quote:

The experiment with the two aircrafts, traveling in opposite directions around the earth should measure not only the time, but the gravity as well. Because it is very logical to assume that the gravity on them will be different.
It is easy to predict that the gravity on these two airplanes will change proportionally with the difference between the time measuring tools.

Before such experiment is done, we cannot claim that simultaneous events can be seen different due to relative speed.

The gravity on two aircraft travelling at the same height and latitude will logically be almost exactly the same.

In practice, there will be differences due mainly to any differences in average altitude. If they fly at different latitudes, there will be further differences, due to the Earth not being perfectly spherical.

When they fly in opposite directions, the effective speed will be different due to the rotation of the Earth.

The experiment has been done, several times.

And of course they took both velocity (Time Dilation due to Special Relativity) and gravitational (General Relativity) are always taken into account:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/airtim.html#c4 wrote:

In October 1971, Hafele and Keating flew cesium beam atomic clocks around the world twice on regularly scheduled commercial airline flights, once to the East and once to the West. In this experiment, both gravitational time dilationand kinematic time dilation are significant - and are in fact of comparable magnitude.

Do you want to give us any more examples of your mis-reading and mis-understanding of this subject?

Quote:

(The relative speed can change the perception of a length and it can be even recored but that is the same like when blue color changes under yellow light (it can also be recorded).
The fact is that the object does not change its color. It is the perception that changes.)

The change in frequency is recorded, and is not anything to do with different apparent color perceived under different lights. If the color is a pure color, of a single wavelength, it will NOT change apparent color under different lighting colors. That only occurs for objects reflecting a range of wavelengths, because it changes the relative amount of light perceived at different wavelengths.

Quote:

And by the way, if you take in account my idea about the absolute and perceptive universal values, you'll see that Speed is based on the perceptive value of Time, and cannot have absolute value, like Einstein's claim about the speed of light.

Quote:
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??

I cannot think of greater significance than the fact that we cannot measure Time (since we use Time to measure Time). Are you saying that this is not significant at all !?

We do not "use Time to measure Time".

We use all sorts of oscillating physical mechanisms which we have no reason to believe, from both theory and observation, should vary in frequency, from pendulums to atoms.

The fact that the results from all these sources all agree as closely as we could expect from the precision of their construction, confirms that they are useful for measuring time duration.

Whatever they are actually measuring, the results we get in all kinds of experiments all point to it being measuring a version of time that produces consistent results in a vast number of observations and experiment.

Quote:

Quote:

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..

Definition of SoundVibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.

I agreed with your definition because it doesn't change the subject of my argument - sound is vibrations or "pressure wave" (if you like it better) with certain frequencies.
Which supports my idea that SOUND has perceptive value.

---

Who has ever denied sound waves can be perceived? Are you seriously claiming you have something new or original there???

"Transmitted through" - in the case of liquids and gases, that transmission is via longitudinal pressure waves.

If you are still not accepting the FACT that "pressure waves" is the most accurate and widely-used description of the mechanism of transmission of sound through liquids and gases, you are being silly and stubborn.

Quote:

I understand the embarrassment of woodworker showing your logical fallacy, but it would be even more embarrassing one day to find out that the woodworker was right and you were calling him fool.
Intelligent people know that "ad hominem" argument can easily  turn against you.

And just to remind you that you still haven't comment the points in my article.
Why do you think that Time is not the relation between two or more events?
Why do you think that we cannot measure Time in my thought experiments, even in the one in which we have an event?

You have still not acknowledged the many factual and logical errors I have pointed to in your posts. The nearest you have come is to rephrase the statement into something closer to the facts and then pretend it is just an alternative way of saying the same thing, and you just did it to make it easier for dumb old me to understand.

You have not shown any errors in my posts, you have simply refused to accept any errors on your part.

I have commented on the substance of your errors in the OP, which I assume you mean when you say "article", although it hardly justifies that description in either content or length. When you say "article" I expect to see a link to a longer description, but I can see none.

Time is the background against which all changes in observed reality, whether change of state of an object in the same place, or by movement, are measured and perceived.

Your distinction between ABSOLUTE and PERCEIVED is not useful, since there is no actual absolute time, and perception of time is an aspect of psychology and neuroscience and cognitive studies, it is clearly separate from any issues with time in physical measurements and observation.

Perception of time would be affected by relativistic effects if sufficiently large, but no-one has experienced velocities or gravitational fields large enough to be noticeable to our direct perception.

Your posts are just a collection of errors.

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
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
Offline
BobSpence1 wrote:We do not

BobSpence1 wrote:

We do not "use Time to measure Time".

Bob, I don't know whether you are scientist, but if you are, that only shows how childishly illogical science can be.

You are actually right in the above statement, but that is according to my explanation of Time.
Yes we don't use Time to measure Time, because there is no such thing as Time.
We use an event to "measure" another event.
But then if we say that we don't use Time to measure Time, all the differences between the measuring tools do not prove different Time.
They only prove that the measuring tool is affected by the motion, gravity or something else.

Do you get my point, Bob?

Scientist like to refer to the GPS usage of theory of relativity, but note that 10% error does not give us much of a proof. (All measurements are arguable)
Adding to it, that science does not measure Time with Time, we logically arrive to the conclusion that the appearing difference is not in Time but in measurement.

(In regard with the time-delay measuring for the GPS system I'd like to say that I'm not mathematician or physicist and therefore I cannot argue the way science calculate the GPS time delay, but there are people who seams to know mathematics and they claim that there is another way to calculate it.
Any way, I'm not using this as a supportive argument. It is only an interesting entertaining fact.)

Bob wrote:
Your distinction between ABSOLUTE and PERCEIVED is not useful, since there is no actual absolute time, and perception of time is an aspect of psychology and neuroscience and cognitive studies, it is clearly separate from any issues with time in physical measurements and observation.

Bob, you cannot even comprehend my idea, and you are trying to argue it.
"PERCEPTIVE value" does not refer to the way we perceive the things, but to their conceptual values.
Let me clear it one more time for you.
It doesn't matter how do we perceive "sweet" (very sweet or little sweet). "Sweet" has perceptive value because it is created in the relation between the mind and the object.
On the other hand, the object which is in interaction with the mind (in which interaction "sweet" was created) has absolute value, because it exists regardless the interaction. The cause for its existence is not in our mind, therefore - ABSOLUTE value.

Bob wrote:
Who has ever denied sound waves can be perceived? Are you seriously claiming you have something new or original there???

Not new, just misinterpretation from your side.
Pressure wave and sound are not one and the same thing.
"Pressure wave" has absolute value, because its cause is not in the mind.
"Sound" has perceptive value, because it is created in the interaction between certain frequency of the pressure wave with the mind.

BobSpence
Posts: 5926
Joined: 2006-02-14
Offline

Your points and arguments are not worth 'getting'.

Your stubborn ignorance, coupled with your condescending attitude to my remarks, are really tedious.

It seems we are not going to really make contact here.

I see you as deeply and arrogantly deluded and confident in your delusion and misunderstanding.

You obviously see me as deeply mistaken - I see no way to break through your stubborn ignorance.

Goodbye.

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
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
Offline
Point of exit

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your points and arguments are not worth 'getting'.

Your stubborn ignorance, coupled with your condescending attitude to my remarks, are really tedious.

It seems we are not going to really make contact here.

I see you as deeply and arrogantly deluded and confident in your delusion and misunderstanding.

You obviously see me as deeply mistaken - I see no way to break through your stubborn ignorance.

Goodbye.

I'm deeply sorry, Bob, and I apologize for my little game with you.
I thought it is fun for you

What I'm gonna say now, I could say it in the beginning but I wanted to have all arguments against my idea, before I make my point clear.
I actually came for your help, to check with you the consistency of my idea (and to have fun of course)

I had to disagree with you in some points where I actually agree, just to make sure that my understanding is scientifically correct.

Now, lets get to the point of exit.

---

I said that:

The relations between two or more events is what we call Time.

Every measuring tool uses event to "measure" Time.
We both agree on that.
We don't use Time to measure Time, we use events.
In that respect my definition is correct - we relate one event to another event in order to "measure" Time.

What you don't see in the picture is that by putting the measuring tool in relative motion, we create event which is different from the event where the measuring tool is in relative peace.
We cannot expect these two events to have equal values.
The tool (which is actually an event) is identical as object and process, but it takes part in two different events.

All events in the chain of events depend on each other.
If we create two chains of events, the dependency in them will be different and the result will be different.

Not having the above in mind, we came to the absurd where we use two different events (chain of events) to measure imaginary value which we call Time.
And because the results differ we falsely conclude that the Time is different.
I know that some opponents will argue the "imaginary" word, but since we don't have empirically  presented subject, I advise you, not to take it on faith.

I'm not against science.
I respect it and I'm amazed by its achievements, but there are some flaws in it, and one of them is the interpretation of Time.

Once again, Bob, I apologize for bringing up in you some unpleasant feelings and emotions.
That wasn't my intent.

BobSpence
Posts: 5926
Joined: 2006-02-14
Offline
Truden wrote:BobSpence1

Truden wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your points and arguments are not worth 'getting'.

Your stubborn ignorance, coupled with your condescending attitude to my remarks, are really tedious.

It seems we are not going to really make contact here.

I see you as deeply and arrogantly deluded and confident in your delusion and misunderstanding.

You obviously see me as deeply mistaken - I see no way to break through your stubborn ignorance.

Goodbye.

I'm deeply sorry, Bob, and I apologize for my little game with you.
I thought it is fun for you

What I'm gonna say now, I could say it in the beginning but I wanted to have all arguments against my idea, before I make my point clear.
I actually came for your help, to check with you the consistency of my idea (and to have fun of course)

I had to disagree with you in some points where I actually agree, just to make sure that my understanding is scientifically correct.

Now, lets get to the point of exit.

---

I said that:

The relations between two or more events is what we call Time.

Every measuring tool uses event to "measure" Time.
We both agree on that.
We don't use Time to measure Time, we use events.
In that respect my definition is correct - we relate one event to another event in order to "measure" Time.

What you don't see in the picture is that by putting the measuring tool in relative motion, we create event which is different from the event where the measuring tool is in relative peace.
We cannot expect these two events to have equal values.
The tool (which is actually an event) is identical as object and process, but it takes part in two different events.

All events in the chain of events depend on each other.
If we create two chains of events, the dependency in them will be different and the result will be different.

Not having the above in mind, we came to the absurd where we use two different events (chain of events) to measure imaginary value which we call Time.
And because the results differ we falsely conclude that the Time is different.
I know that some opponents will argue the "imaginary" word, but since we don't have empirically  presented subject, I advise you, not to take it on faith.

I'm not against science.
I respect it and I'm amazed by its achievements, but there are some flaws in it, and one of them is the interpretation of Time.

Once again, Bob, I apologize for bringing up in you some unpleasant feelings and emotions.
That wasn't my intent.

OK, I'll give you another chance.

Please show a little less arrogance and be prepared to admit where you may have actually got some things wrong.

You still misunderstand Einstein's theory. Of course he took the normal problems of measuring time intervals between events in two differently moving frames of reference into account - these are mainly due to the effects of the finite speed of light, which is how we observe the apparent passage of time as indicated on clocks in each frame.

There is no actual physical measuring tool involved to measure velocities, only optical measurements, imagined to be based on things like surveyors instruments.

In the Special Theory he was working through the implications of the Michelson-Morley experiments which showed that light appears to travel at a constant speed regardless of the motion of the frame of reference - in their case, the orbital motion of the Earth at different times of the year.

The formula for the apparent spatial contraction and time dilation of one frame of reference moving at a constant speed relative to the observer was formulated to so as to get  the result that when we observed someone measuring the speed of light in the other frame it would always come out to the same value as we would get measuring the same beam of light, so matching the results of the MM experiment.

The results of this calculation are that even after correcting for the normal direct effects of the speed of light on the time we see something happening in other frame, the time interval we measure between two events, one in our frame, one in the one moving relative to us, is going to depend on the relative velocity of the two frames, so there is no absolute time which is independent of the motion of the observer.

Light is the basic measuring 'tool' for speed and distance in all this. The precise measure of the local passage of time is usually done by counting the cycles of a signal at the natural resonance frequency of caesium atoms in an atomic clock. The time interval between two events is measured by counting how many oscillations occur between when we observe one event and the other. If they are in frames of reference in relative motion with respect to each other, we measure the relative motion with optical instruments and our clock, and apply the Einsteinian corrections.

The General Theory extended the Special Theory to allow for the effects of gravitational fields, and varying relative velocity (in magnitude and direction). Part of this included the equivalence principle, which states that it is not possible for observers to distinguish between being in a box accelerating at a constant rate, and in a box suspended in a uniform gravitational field strong enough to cause the same acceleration on freely falling objects.

Now that is an outline of the current thoroughly tested aspects of Einstein's Theories.

You cannot just dismiss any of that without a far more carefully thought-through hypothesis, with the appropriate mathematics, than I have seen from you so far. You have not argued remotely adequately to show flaws in the current theory, as I just outlined it. You have mainly demonstrated the flaws in your understanding of proven science.

Care to have another go, and specifically point out what you see as the flaw(s) in the description I just gave? Remember, time is measured by precisely measuring the natural oscillation frequency of atoms in an atomic clock, speed and distance using optical instruments.

If you are doing your reasoning and calculations carefully, you are doing science, and any flaws you feel you have uncovered are not flaws in science, they are (if demonstrated) flaws in the current interpretation of Time by most scientists. There are scientists exploring far more elaborate and strange interpretations of Time and Space than you are here, such as in String Theory, so don't rubbish Science, its the only tool we have for coming to grips with reality with our individual prejudices and biases and sensory limitations filtered out.

Scientists welcome fresh theories, but they have to be carefully defined so that other scientists can understand what you are trying to say.

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
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
Offline
BobSpence1 wrote:OK, I'll

BobSpence1 wrote:

OK, I'll give you another chance.

Thank you, Bob.
I appreciate it

---

I'm afraid you didn't understand my previous comment, or most likely I wasn't clear enough.
I don't put in doubt the results of Einstein's theory.
What I'm saying is that he wrongly interprets Time.

As I said, I agree that we measure time with events.
Not necessarily tools (as I pointed, all time measuring tools are events)

Yes, we use light to measure time, but when used from two different frame of reference, the event of the traveling light becomes part of two different chain of events (complex events) and of course it returns different values.

That is why I said in my previous comment, that all events in the chain of events are dependent on each other.
If we change one of the events in the chain, we get different results for our measurements.
And this is exactly what we do by changing the frame of reference.

BobSpence
Posts: 5926
Joined: 2006-02-14
Offline
Truden wrote:BobSpence1

Truden wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

OK, I'll give you another chance.

Thank you, Bob.
I appreciate it

---

I'm afraid you didn't understand my previous comment, or most likely I wasn't clear enough.
I don't put in doubt the results of Einstein's theory.
What I'm saying is that he wrongly interprets Time.

As I said, I agree that we measure time with events.
Not necessarily tools (as I pointed, all time measuring tools are events)

Yes, we use light to measure time, but when used from two different frame of reference, the event of the traveling light becomes part of two different chain of events (complex events) and of course it returns different values.

That is why I said in my previous comment, that all events in the chain of events are dependent on each other.
If we change one of the events in the chain, we get different results for our measurements.
And this is exactly what we do by changing the frame of reference.

He did not wrongly interpret time, he applied an interpretation that works well in the context of current science, and so far has not been found to have any discrepancies when compared against observations. That is all we can ask of any theory.

Now if you want to try a different way to study time, and can demonstrate that it provides some useful new insights, then fine, go ahead.

Actually I was a bit sloppy in that post. We don't use light to measure time, we use light to measure the distances and between different objects and their directions. Their speed can then be measured by observing them at two times close together.

We measure time by counting the number of ticks of a mechanical clock, or the vibrations of a quartz crystal, or the oscillations of the atoms in an atomic clock, between one event and another. We use light to observe the events we are timing.

The events in a sequence are not necessarily dependent on each other - I don't quite see what you mean by that. All we need for this discussion is two separate events, plus the moving dial or counters of the clock, plus our surveyor scope to measure the position of each event.

If two events we are comparing or timing are in differently moving frames of reference, we have to at least correct for the time it will take light to reach us from each event.

If a third observer compares the times of events in two other frames of reference which are moving at different velocities, he will get different results, even after correcting for the time it will take for light to reach him from each event, depending on his velocity, observing exactly the same two events. This is the consequence of Einstein's Special Relativity. Do you understand and accept this?

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
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
Offline
BobSpence1 wrote: If two

BobSpence1 wrote:

If two events we are comparing or timing are in differently moving frames of reference, we have to at least correct for the time it will take light to reach us from each event.

If a third observer compares the times of events in two other frames of reference which are moving at different velocities, he will get different results, even after correcting for the time it will take for light to reach him from each event, depending on his velocity, observing exactly the same two events. This is the consequence of Einstein's Special Relativity. Do you understand and accept this?

I understand that the event is actually one and is observed from two different frames of reference.
Am I correct?

When we "measure time" we relate the measuring event, to the measured event.
The misinterpretation comes from the fact that we treat the measuring event as unchangeable value, because of its precision.
The precision doesn't matter here.
What matters is that for us Time is the relation between the measuring event and the measured event.
In our case the measuring event is exercised from two different frames of reference, which changes its relation to the measured event.

We have two different set of events here:

1) measuring event in motion (first frame of reference) in relation with event A (measured event)
2) measuring event in peace (second frame of reference)  in relation with event A (measured event)

These two are not the same type set of events and we cannot compare them in order to extract "difference in Time".
The first one includes relative motion, while the second one includes relative peace, which will result in different relations, from where the difference between the results comes.

Truden
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
Offline
BobSpence1 wrote:The events

BobSpence1 wrote:

The events in a sequence are not necessarily dependent on each other - I don't quite see what you mean by that

Sorry, I missed that in my previous comment.

The events in sequence are cause and effect (result)

I don't see how they "are not necessarily dependent".
The measuring event is in motion, and the motion becomes part of the cause for the returned result.

We can check this by putting two clocks on two airplanes

BobSpence
Posts: 5926
Joined: 2006-02-14
Offline
Truden wrote:BobSpence1

Truden wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

If two events we are comparing or timing are in differently moving frames of reference, we have to at least correct for the time it will take light to reach us from each event.

If a third observer compares the times of events in two other frames of reference which are moving at different velocities, he will get different results, even after correcting for the time it will take for light to reach him from each event, depending on his velocity, observing exactly the same two events. This is the consequence of Einstein's Special Relativity. Do you understand and accept this?

I understand that the event is actually one and is observed from two different frames of reference.
Am I correct?

Of course not.

A single event is still seen as a single event from every frame of reference, and of course you need at least two events to mark a time interval two be measured.

What did you think we were going to measure with one event?

Quote:

When we "measure time" we relate the measuring event, to the measured event.

No.

We count the number of standard timing events ( such as clock ticks ) that occur between the observation of the two observed events.

Quote:

The misinterpretation comes from the fact that we treat the measuring event as unchangeable value, because of its precision.
The precision doesn't matter here.
What matters is that for us Time is the relation between the measuring event and the measured event.

You can't measure anything with a single measuring event.

The measuring system has to be something generating a regular sequence of (measuring) events.

To measure precisely, there are two requirements:

1. The process determining the time interval between one 'tick' and the next be as simple and and unaffected by external conditions as possible;

2. That interval be as short as possible, since this directly defines the smallest difference in timing that can be measured.

Quote:

In our case the measuring event is exercised from two different frames of reference, which changes its relation to the measured event.

We have two different set of events here:

1) measuring event in motion (first frame of reference) in relation with event A (measured event)
2) measuring event in peace (second frame of reference)  in relation with event A (measured event)

These two are not the same type set of events and we cannot compare them in order to extract "difference in Time".
The first one includes relative motion, while the second one includes relative peace, which will result in different relations, from where the difference between the results comes.

That doesn't seem to match how we actually would test Einstein's theory.

The standard test depends on having two clocks running at the same rate.

This can be checked by simply letting them run side-by-side over a longish time and seeing if their tick-counters keep registering the same total count.

Then you put one counter in something moving, and compare its counter reading with the one back with the observer.

There is no actual measured event as such. Just two sequences of measuring events (clock ticks).

You could send the two clocks out each in their own frame of reference and compare the two counters as observed from the one point of observation, which is theoretically more valid, in that the only difference between the two clocks is their motion.

You can't measure any time with a single 'measuring' event - all you can say with one event is whether another event occurs before, at the same time as, or after, another event.

You need a clock of some sort, ie a regular sequence of measuring events.

So, actually you are correct, you cannot do a valid test with what you describe. So that is not how we actually test this.

You don't have single measured and measuring events, you have two clocks, which each generate a rapid sequence of events very close together in time. We have to be confident that the two clocks will always tick at exactly the same rate, which can be tested to a useful degree by comparing them against each other and other clocks or natural sources of oscillation such as vibrating atoms.

This is the key point, which means we cannot strictly compare the timing of two events directly and absolutely, we have to rely on constructing clocks which will keep in step very precisely under varying external conditions, such as temperature and gravity and acceleration forces. But this can be tested to increase our confidence, and we can run the experiment repeatedly to see if we get consistent results, which is exactly what has been done.

So it seems the problem you have identified has already been identified - it is actually pretty obvious when you think about it, so you have to rely on accurate clocks.

It doesn't even rely on the clocks accurately measuring 'real' time, it just relies on the two clocks keeping in step, at least when in the same frame of reference and gravity.

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
Posts: 5926
Joined: 2006-02-14
Offline
Truden wrote:BobSpence1

Truden wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The events in a sequence are not necessarily dependent on each other - I don't quite see what you mean by that

Sorry, I missed that in my previous comment.

The events in sequence are cause and effect (result)

I don't see how they "are not necessarily dependent".
The measuring event is in motion, and the motion becomes part of the cause for the returned result.

We can check this by putting two clocks on two airplanes

Ok, I may have mis-intepreted what you had in mind.

But still, the result of the moving clock is not dependant on what happens to the reference clock.

The possibility that the motion will effect the moving clock is what we are looking for.

And it has been done with clocks on two different planes. All of these experiments have confirmed Einstein's formulas.

As per the post I just put up, the actual experiment is done by comparing clocks, which I see may be what you had in mind.

So what is your problem with it? Are you saying we can't be sure the relative motion is what is causing the difference in the tick rate of the clocks?

Or are you suggesting the clocks are not measuring 'real' Time?

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
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
Offline
BobSpence1 wrote: Ok, I may

BobSpence1 wrote:

Ok, I may have mis-intepreted what you had in mind.

But still, the result of the moving clock is not dependant on what happens to the reference clock.

The possibility that the motion will effect the moving clock is what we are looking for.

And it has been done with clocks on two different planes. All of these experiments have confirmed Einstein's formulas.

As per the post I just put up, the actual experiment is done by comparing clocks, which I see may be what you had in mind.

So what is your problem with it? Are you saying we can't be sure the relative motion is what is causing the difference in the tick rate of the clocks?

Or are you suggesting the clocks are not measuring 'real' Time?

I'll skip your previous comment and I'll make an effort on this one.

I'm not saying that we can't be sure the relative motion is what is causing the difference in the tick rate of the clocks.
On the contrary - I'm VERY SURE that the relative motion affects the clocks.
Yes, Einstein's formulas are right.

I said:

Truden wrote:
What you don't see in the picture is that by putting the measuring tool in relative motion, we create event which is different from the event where the measuring tool is in relative peace.

We cannot expect these two events to have equal values.
The tool (which is actually an event) is identical as object and process, but it takes part in two different events.

All events in the chain of events depend on each other.

If we create two chains of events, the dependency in them will be different and the result will be different.

You said:

Bob wrote:
The events in a sequence are not necessarily dependent on each other - I don't quite see what you mean by that.

Truden wrote:
The events in sequence are cause and effect (result)

I don't see how they "are not necessarily dependent".
The measuring event is in motion, and the motion becomes part of the cause for the returned result.

We can check this by putting two clocks on two airplanes

So, to compact it with the same answers:

By observing the relation between two events from two different frames of reference, we create two completely  different lines of events.
In each line the relations between the events are different from the other line and they depend on each other in their line.
The measuring event (it is event, because the ticking of the clock is event) depends on the relative speed, and obviously gives different value.
We cannot compare any value in the two lines to prove different Time. It is like to compare apples with pears.
By comparing the values we can only prove that the clocks are running differently because they are affected by the speed and therefore they are in different relation with the measured events.

To put it in one sentence: The measuring event is affected, not the measured one.

liberatedatheist
Posts: 137
Joined: 2009-12-08
Offline
If i can jump in real quick,

If i can jump in real quick, I think Truden is using some really ambiguous language that might make it seem like he is saying something different from what he means.

truden wrote:
By observing the relation between two events from two different frames of reference, we create two completely  different lines of events.

This is true according to einstein's perception of time as well. Two events that appear simultaneous to one observer in his rest frame will appear to take place at two different times to a second observer that has a non zero velocity relative to the first observer.

truden wrote:

In each line the relations between the events are different from the other line and they depend on each other in their line.The measuring event (it is event, because the ticking of the clock is event) depends on the relative speed, and obviously gives different value.

I'm going to try to restate this in a way that makes sense. "In each [frame of reference] the [order of events] is different from the [order of events in the other frame of reference] and [the events] depend on each other in their [frame of reference]. The measuring event (I think you mean the standard of measure used to give a specific time value, as in one tick of a clock would be the measuring event) depends on [its] relative speed, and obviously [will record] different [time] values.

the two events do not depend on each other, that implies some sort of force or interaction. The order of events as perceived by an observer will change if the the observer changes his frame of reference. We can make the events observers in themselves, so the order of events as observed by one event will be different than the order of events as perceived by the other event if the events are moving relative to one another.  If we have two identical clocks that are both at rest relative to one another, they will tick exactly in sync. As soon as one clock is put into motion while the other stays at rest than both clocks will immediately start ticking out of sync. How far off they will be depends on how fast one is moving relative to the other. Both clocks will perceive that the other clock changed while they stayed the same. The order of events depends on the reference frame that you choose to be in but not on the events themselves which is hopefully what you were trying to say.

truden wrote:
We cannot compare any value in the two lines to prove different Time. It is like to compare apples with pears. By comparing the values we can only prove that the clocks are running differently because they are affected by the speed and therefore they are in different relation with the measured events.

The clocks will register different time values if they are moving relative to one another as long as they measured the same time value when they were at rest relative to one another. This difference proves that time "moves" faster or slower in one frame of reference that is moving relative to another frame of reference. Each frame of reference will be equally correct and neither will be preferred by the laws of physics.

truden wrote:
To put it in one sentence: The measuring event is affected, not the measured one.

Each event will observe the other event to have changed (slow down or speed up. Which one depends on the frame of reference you are in). Which is what i think you are trying to say??

To bring up the twin paradox: Put my twin on a rocket. While the rocket is at rest we both are aging at the same rate. Now accelerate his rocket close to the speed of light. My twin will not age any different relative to his normal perception. For him in his frame of reference, time will not have changed. The same thing applies to me, i will not perceive any difference. But, if i observe my twin years later after he has slowed down, he will appear to be and actually be younger than me because he "passed through" less time than me. Relative to my frame of reference, time slowed down for him. Relative to his frame of reference time has speed up for me and i will appear older. How much older depends on how fast he was going relative to me.

I Am My God

The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence

Truden
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
Offline
to liberated atheist

@liberated atheist

Thank you for trying to help me, but in this case you need help to understand me.
Read EXACTLY what I've written and try to understand it.
Ask what do I mean by saying something. Don't restate it.

If I say that the relations in both event lines are different I mean exactly that.
The order of the events doesn't matter anymore because the events are not the same.
In one of the frame we have motion with different speed, and that is not the same event as in the other frame.

Quote:
the two events do not depend on each other, that implies some sort of force or interaction

Every event is created by certain force and every next event in the line depends on that force.

To say it simple that everyone could understand it I'd say:

The more kinetic energy the more fucked up the clock is.
We can say it because the kinetic energy is a result of an event and if we follow the event line we can see the following.
different speed -> different kinetic energy for the clocks - > different measurement.

So, not different TIME, because the Time "is" in the measured event, not in the clock.

BobSpence
Posts: 5926
Joined: 2006-02-14
Offline
You still don't quite get

You still don't quite get it.

In the case of an observer watching two different clocks moving at different velocity relative to his frame, he will see the clocks running at different speeds, the clock in the one moving faster appearing to run slower. There is no 'measured' and 'measuring' event, there are just two clocks, with the count of ticks on one frame appearing to fall behind the clock on the other.

If we have an observer on each of two frames of reference moving with respect to each other, each observer will see the other clock moving slower than the one beside them. There is no real difference between the two frames from the view-point of a third observer. If the other frames are moving at the same speed relative to the third observer, their clocks will appear to to be ticking at the same rate, and slower than one beside the third observer. This is at the same time as each observer on the original moving frames will see the clock on the other running slower than the one on their own frame.

Do you understand? Each clock on the original pair of frames is experiencing the same velocity with respect to the other. There is no meaning to saying one is moving and one is not. There is no absolute velocity. It seems to be a paradox - it is impossible for each clock in a pair to really run slower than the other.

General relativity resolves this paradox. The problem in Special Relativity is that you cannot start with two synchronised clocks, which are then put on two different aircraft, flown on different speeds and tracks, and then brought back together at in a common frame of reference to compare them, without subjecting them to many changes of velocity, which means we cannot use special relativity alone to calculate what time (tick count) they will show at the end of the process. Unless you can bring the two clocks back together, there is no actual paradox.

Every change in velocity means they are subjected to acceleration, which is not relative, and 'really' slows down the clock. If we do the calculations taking acceleration into account, the paradox disappears - the clock subject to most acceleration will have fallen behind the other.

So actually you are partially correct, but it is not 'kinetic energy', which a function of velocity squared, which causes the final time discrepancy, it is acceleration/deceleration. IOW change in velocity, not velocity itself. The one subject to the most velocity change will be the one that has slipped behind when you bring them back together.

It is cumulative count of successive 'events' in the form of ticks which is being compared - the number of such events is the measure of effective time duration.

The only causality which is ultimately relevant here is the effect of acceleration ( 'g-forces' ) on the rate at which time appears to pass, as measured by some regular physical process such as a spring and balance wheel, or vibrating atoms. All theory and experiment confirms that the effect applies equally to every object experiencing that acceleration.

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
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
Offline
BobSpence1 wrote:You still

BobSpence1 wrote:

You still don't quite get it.

In the case of an observer watching two different clocks moving at different velocity relative to his frame, he will see the clocks running at different speeds, the clock in the one moving faster appearing to run slower. There is no 'measured' and 'measuring' event, there are just two clocks, with the count of ticks on one frame appearing to fall behind the clock on the other.

Bob, I am not that stupid, but with no offence I have to say that you are disappointing me.
How can you say that the tick of the clock is not event!?
One tick is one event.
Many ticks are one reappearing event, or many events with the same cause, which (events) appear in the same rate, if you like it better.

We measure Time by relating one reappearing event to the measured event.
We can measure the event motion (which is one only event) by counting one reappearing event during our observation of the motion and we could say that the motion appeared to us for the time (number) of 100 ticks of the clock.
This 100 ticks come as result of relating one reappearing event to the event "motion".
Now is it clear to you that we MEASURED the event "motion" with the event "tick"? The result we call Time and use it in expressions like "for the time of 100 seconds", which must tell you that the second is not Time.
The relation between the reappearing second and the other event is what we call Time.

An observer does the same what the measuring devises do - he relates one event to another.
An observer can see that one reappearing event does not match another reappearing event, which will only proof that they are running in different rate.
Why they run in different rate is another question.

I don't know what do you mean by saying "the observer will SEE", when explaining the different observing results in different frames of reference?
Is this a conclusion which is taken out of a theory, or such experiment was conducted and they asked all observers what did they see
I think that we need measuring here. Don't you think so?
But when we measure, we come to the point of different kinetic energy in the different frames of reference, which fucks up the clocks

BobSpence
Posts: 5926
Joined: 2006-02-14
Offline
Truden wrote:BobSpence1

Truden wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

You still don't quite get it.

In the case of an observer watching two different clocks moving at different velocity relative to his frame, he will see the clocks running at different speeds, the clock in the one moving faster appearing to run slower. There is no 'measured' and 'measuring' event, there are just two clocks, with the count of ticks on one frame appearing to fall behind the clock on the other.

Bob, I am not that stupid, but with no offence I have to say that you are disappointing me.
How can you say that the tick of the clock is not event!?
One tick is one event.
Many ticks are one reappearing event, or many events with the same cause, which (events) appear in the same rate, if you like it better.

We measure Time by relating one reappearing event to the measured event.
We can measure the event motion (which is one only event) by counting one reappearing event during our observation of the motion and we could say that the motion appeared to us for the time (number) of 100 ticks of the clock.
This 100 ticks come as result of relating one reappearing event to the event "motion".
Now is it clear to you that we MEASURED the event "motion" with the event "tick"? The result we call Time and use it in expressions like "for the time of 100 seconds", which must tell you that the second is not Time.
The relation between the reappearing second and the other event is what we call Time.

An observer does the same what the measuring devises do - he relates one event to another.
An observer can see that one reappearing event does not match another reappearing event, which will only proof that they are running in different rate.
Why they run in different rate is another question.

I don't know what do you mean by saying "the observer will SEE", when explaining the different observing results in different frames of reference?
Is this a conclusion which is taken out of a theory, or such experiment was conducted and they asked all observers what did they see
I think that we need measuring here. Don't you think so?
But when we measure, we come to the point of different kinetic energy in the different frames of reference, which fucks up the clocks

It did not say a clock tick is not an event. But to concentrate on the individual events and their 'relationship in the way you seem to is to not see the forest for the trees.

It is the continually changing count of ticks that is the measure of elapsed time, not the 'motion' of any event, which doesn't quite make sense, because you are using 'event' in a everyday sense, not the way it is used in Physics. I hope you see this is one reason why a scientist will find your account confusing.

The only 'motion' involved is the changing counter or dial of the clock.

One second is a standard measure of the dimension of Time, just as one meter is a standard measure of spatial dimension.

Clocks are designed so that the rate of ticking is as consistent as possible, and as high as possible relative to how accurately we wish to measure Time. They can only measure time in terms of the number of discrete ticks ( 'tick events' if you like ). Beyond establishing that the rate at which ticks occur is as consistent as possible, the detail of how we go from one tick to the next does not give us any insight into Time.

Motion is NOT an EVENT, in the language of physics and relativity. That is totally wrong.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

In physics, and in particular relativity, an event indicates a physical situation or occurrence, located at a specific point in space and time. For example, a glass breaking on the floor is an event; it occurs at a unique place and a unique time, in a given frame of reference. Strictly speaking, the notion of an event is an idealization, in the sense that it specifies a definite time and place, whereas any actual event is bound to have a finite extent, both in time and in space.

So the elapsed time is a measure of the 'distance' along the Time dimension between two events, not the duration of one event. This misuse of the word 'event' in this context confuses the issue.

The number of ticks that are counted starting from the occurrence of the first event until the second event occurs is a measure of the separation in the Time dimension between the two events, in the frame of reference that the clock is in.

We do not compare the apparent passage of time in two frames of reference tick by tick, we compare the change in the tick count on one timer with the change in count on the other for some reasonable period of time. If we want an estimate of apparent elapsed time within 1% accuracy, we need the slowest clock to have ticked at least 100 times.

The difference is only proof that they appear to be running at different rates as viewed from the reference frame of the observer.

The observer 'sees' the counts at the start and at the finish of the timing period. "Sees" refers to whatever means is actually used to transfer the reading on the tick counters, or the position of the dial, etc of each clock back to the reference frame of that observer. This could hypothetically be with a telescope, but in practical experiments it will be as data transmitted via radio or possibly a laser beam. The important thing is to get the counts while the clocks are actually moving.

The 'kinetic energy' is not relevant, it is the relative velocity, plus any acceleration, so we need a matching record of the position, tick by tick, to allow us to compare the velocity and acceleration over the timing period, with the rate at which the clock is ticking. They also need to record the 'g' force experience by the clock, since this is also affects the rate at which time passes in that frame of reference. This would be measured directly by a precision accelerometer.

There are two distinct aspects of the experiments, one concerned with the predictions of Special Relativity, which are concerned only with observations from frames of reference moving at a constant velocity in a straight line in the absence of gravity, and General Relativity, where you take the effects of gravity and acceleration into account.

You really seem to have completely misunderstood the effects of Special Relativity

If two spacecraft or airplanes are moving at constant velocity away from each other, each one will observe that the clock in the other craft is appears to be running slower than the one in his craft. Now part of this is simply due to the fact that the radio or laser signal which is carrying the information on the clock reading in the other craft is going to be taking longer to get back to him as the other craft is continually getting further away. But even after allowing for this, there will still be a discrepancy.

Each one will see the other's clock apparently running slow when compared to his.

There are no 'moving' and 'motionless' frames of reference, in an absolute sense. In this example. Each observer sees, or measures with instruments, the other craft moving away from his at the same speed. This idea really does allow many apparent paradoxes, like the famous Twins Paradox. But most, if not all, of those are not describable purely within the 'constant speed in a straight line' condition that Special Relativity applies to. The Twins Paradox, which has one twin travelling at high speed away from the Earth and back, who has therefore been subject to acceleration, in getting up to speed, slowing down and accelerating back in the direction of home, then slowing back to a stop relative to Earth, whereas the one who stayed at home hasn't been, which explains how he will have aged relative to his twin.

Your idea is roughly consistent with the effects of gravity and acceleration, ie, General Relativity. NOT kinetic energy, though. We observe that light emitted by atoms from very dense stars appears to be 'red-shifted', ie, slowed in rate of time passing relative to an observer (us) viewing or measuring it from a lower gravity environment. It isn't just that clocks run slow, everything runs slower in a high gravity environment, which is exactly equivalent to saying that Time is running slower in that environment. And note, there is no general movement involved there, so no "kinetic energy". Just the thermal vibrations of the atoms, which is itself slowed in the strong gravitational field.

I have read your account, and I have tried to make sense of it, and pointed out problems like using words in different ways to how they are used in scientific descriptions, where it is vitally important that we all understand exactly what all our words refer to.

Can you possibly admit that you may have got something at least slightly wrong? I am basing my explanations on established science. You are trying to explain what you see as an error in the science, so you need to justify carefully why you disagree, and be prepared to adjust your 'theory' when errors are pointed out.

Your stubborn insistence that I haven't understood what you are saying whenever I don't agree with it is still annoying.

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
Posts: 5926
Joined: 2006-02-14
Offline
With respect to your

With respect to your definitions, you said at the start of your OP:

Quote:

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

According to my dictionary, the definition which seems to apply in general use is:

"the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole : travel through space and time | one of the greatest wits of all time."

From Wikipedia:

"Time is part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects."

"An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is highly useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. The operational definition leaves aside the question whether there is something called time, apart from the counting activity just mentioned, that flows and that can be measured."

From another site:

"Time is an observed phenomenon, by means of which human beings sense and record changes in the environment and in the universe. A literal definition is elusive. Time has been called an illusion, a dimension, a smooth-flowing continuum, and an expression of separation among events that occur in the same physical location."

From a very interesting article here:

NewScientist wrote:

Scientists have long worried about the nature of time. At the beginning of the 18th century, Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz argued over whether time was truly fundamental to the universe. Then Einstein came along and created more problems: his general theory of relativity is responsible for our most counter-intuitive notions of time.

General relativity knits together space, time and gravity. Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France.

I have to ask, who is this "we" you refer to there? Because it does not quite seem to be a definition in general use.

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
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
Offline
BobSpence1 wrote:With

BobSpence1 wrote:

With respect to your definitions, you said at the start of your OP:

Quote:

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

According to my dictionary, the definition which seems to apply in general use is:

Quote:

"the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole : travel through space and time | one of the greatest wits of all time."

.......................................................................................................

I have to ask, who is this "we" you refer to there? Because it does not quite seem to be a definition in general use.

I assume that you have nothing to say (argue) about my last comment on Time and you finally decided to look into the definitions.
Well, I can only say thank you, Bob.

My last comment reflects my definition, therefore it is the right one, and science must adopt it for use.
All definitions that deffer from the one proposed by me are wrong.
The above statement is based on basic logic.

This comment of mine is the end of my "point of exit".
I have nothing more to say on the discussed matter.

---

I thank you all for helping me to take in account some of the arguments that might be critical for the right explanation of Time.

I think that Rational Responders must be proud that it is one of the first participants where the issue about the Time was discussed and cleared from the delusional understanding.
I am a man who works as a carpenter, but I might as well be a man who did not find the same satisfaction in science as he found in the woodwork.
The man doesn't matter.
I don't matter.
What matters is the truth which sometimes stays beneath our understanding, not as foundation but as covered treasure.

Thank you All.

Truden
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
Offline
Truden wrote:BobSpence1

Truden wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

With respect to your definitions, you said at the start of your OP:

Quote:

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

According to my dictionary, the definition which seems to apply in general use is:

Quote:

"the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole : travel through space and time | one of the greatest wits of all time."

.......................................................................................................

I have to ask, who is this "we" you refer to there? Because it does not quite seem to be a definition in general use.

I assume that you have nothing to say (argue) about my last comment on Time and you finally decided to look into the definitions.
Well, I can only say thank you, Bob.

My last comment reflects my definition, therefore it is the right one, and science must adopt it for use.
All definitions that deffer from the one proposed by me are wrong.
The above statement is based on basic logic.

This comment of mine is the end of my "point of exit".
I have nothing more to say on the discussed matter.

---

I thank you all for helping me to take in account some of the arguments that might be critical for the right explanation of Time.

I think that Rational Responders must be proud that it is one of the first participants where the issue about the Time was discussed and cleared from the delusional understanding.
I am a man who works as a carpenter, but I might as well be a man who did not find the same satisfaction in science as he found in the woodwork.
The man doesn't matter.
I don't matter.
What matters is the truth which sometimes stays beneath our understanding, not as foundation but as covered treasure.

Thank you All.

Oh, I did not see the comment before your last one, Bob.
But still, I have nothing more to say.

BobSpence
Posts: 5926
Joined: 2006-02-14
Offline
Truden wrote:BobSpence1

Truden wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

With respect to your definitions, you said at the start of your OP:

Quote:

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

According to my dictionary, the definition which seems to apply in general use is:

Quote:

"the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole : travel through space and time | one of the greatest wits of all time."

.......................................................................................................

I have to ask, who is this "we" you refer to there? Because it does not quite seem to be a definition in general use.

I assume that you have nothing to say (argue) about my last comment on Time and you finally decided to look into the definitions.
Well, I can only say thank you, Bob.

Umm, so you have no comment on my long post just before that one, where I went into some detail about various aspects of your ideas and how they related to Einstein's theories??

Quote:

My last comment reflects my definition, therefore it is the right one, and science must adopt it for use.
All definitions that deffer from the one proposed by me are wrong.
The above statement is based on basic logic.

This is a sarcastic comment, I have to assume, because it totally devoid of logic. It is correct because you thought it up? WTF?

Or did you really read my previous post and this is your reaction to my pointing out a few more of your basic errors and referring to your stubborn refusal to re-examine your theory in the light of my comments?

Quote:

This comment of mine is the end of my "point of exit".
I have nothing more to say on the discussed matter.

---

I thank you all for helping me to take in account some of the arguments that might be critical for the right explanation of Time.

I think that Rational Responders must be proud that it is one of the first participants where the issue about the Time was discussed and cleared from the delusional understanding.
I am a man who works as a carpenter, but I might as well be a man who did not find the same satisfaction in science as he found in the woodwork.
The man doesn't matter.
I don't matter.
What matters is the truth which sometimes stays beneath our understanding, not as foundation but as covered treasure.

Thank you All.

Pissed-off because no-one took your confused ideas very seriously - oh well, none so blind as those who refuse to see...

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
Posts: 170
Joined: 2008-01-25
Offline
BobSpence1 wrote:Truden

BobSpence1 wrote:

Truden wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

With respect to your definitions, you said at the start of your OP:

Quote:

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

According to my dictionary, the definition which seems to apply in general use is:

Quote:

"the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole : travel through space and time | one of the greatest wits of all time."

.......................................................................................................

I have to ask, who is this "we" you refer to there? Because it does not quite seem to be a definition in general use.

I assume that you have nothing to say (argue) about my last comment on Time and you finally decided to look into the definitions.
Well, I can only say thank you, Bob.

Umm, so you have no comment on my long post just before that one, where I went into some detail about various aspects of your ideas and how they related to Einstein's theories??

Quote:

My last comment reflects my definition, therefore it is the right one, and science must adopt it for use.
All definitions that deffer from the one proposed by me are wrong.
The above statement is based on basic logic.

This is a sarcastic comment, I have to assume, because it totally devoid of logic. It is correct because you thought it up? WTF?

Or did you really read my previous post and this is your reaction to my pointing out a few more of your basic errors and referring to your stubborn refusal to re-examine your theory in the light of my comments?

Quote:

This comment of mine is the end of my "point of exit".
I have nothing more to say on the discussed matter.

---

I thank you all for helping me to take in account some of the arguments that might be critical for the right explanation of Time.

I think that Rational Responders must be proud that it is one of the first participants where the issue about the Time was discussed and cleared from the delusional understanding.
I am a man who works as a carpenter, but I might as well be a man who did not find the same satisfaction in science as he found in the woodwork.
The man doesn't matter.
I don't matter.
What matters is the truth which sometimes stays beneath our understanding, not as foundation but as covered treasure.

Thank you All.

Pissed-off because no-one took your confused ideas very seriously - oh well, none so blind as those who refuse to see...

Bob, don't take my last comments as disrespect.
I respect you more than you can imagine
I really said everything I could say in this discussion.
You have to try to understand me, otherwise you will run in circles, making me repeat myself over and over again.

I admit that there are flaws in my explanation, but they don't affect my idea.
I'll have to work out some differences between the common and the scientific use of the terms and I'll come back to you

For now, I urge you to take "out of the box" look at my idea and try to help me next time we meet
Don't be afraid to think that something as big as changing the interpretation about Time can happen.
Einstein is not the best that humanity can give birth to

I'll be back soon.

BobSpence
Posts: 5926
Joined: 2006-02-14
Offline
Truden wrote:Bob, don't take

Truden wrote:

Bob, don't take my last comments as disrespect.

I respect you more than you can imagine
I really said everything I could say in this discussion.
You have to try to understand me, otherwise you will run in circles, making me repeat myself over and over again.

I admit that there are flaws in my explanation, but they don't affect my idea.
I'll have to work out some differences between the common and the scientific use of the terms and I'll come back to you

For now, I urge you to take "out of the box" look at my idea and try to help me next time we meet
Don't be afraid to think that something as big as changing the interpretation about Time can happen.
Einstein is not the best that humanity can give birth to

I'll be back soon.

Look, I fully understand that there can and will be progress beyond Einstein, and scientists are exploring new ideas about 'Time' all the time, of course.

But when you do not seem to quite understand Einstein's ideas, and make such basic errors, as I kept pointing out, and which you refused to acknowledge, it is hard to take you seriously.

But I honestly cannot see that you have anything that really amounts to a useful new concept here.

I do think I get the core idea what you are trying to say, but it really is not that different from what some others have already proposed, but they have expressed it more clearly and much better related to what has already been established about the subject.

1. In a 'Universe' containing just one object, we cannot meaningfully talk about time, OK. We cannot even talk about motion, so even saying it is 'motionless' is meaningless.

2. It is not so much 'events' we need to have time, it is change, even continuous change, which is not really well described by talking about events. This is where you start to go 'off the rails'.

3. If two objects are moving away from each other, that is all we need to be able to talk about time. The movement would be observed and measured with light, or are you assuming there is not even light in this hypothetical universe?

4. If the increase in distance between the two objects is observable, we can meaningfully refer to their relative velocity is (that is the more precise term to use here, since it includes the direction as well as the magnitude of velocity).

I am not using velocity ('speed') to prove time. It is not time that requires there to be 'speed', to 'prove' it, it is the existence of motion that requires there to be a dimension of Time to make it even possible. I think you have it backwards.

The absence of any discrete 'events' is not relevant, just change. Change is what needs Time. This is your basic error.

To measure Time consistently we do use repeated events which we have reason to believe are consistent and therefore assumed to occur at equal intervals of time.

Now here is another thought - imagine that one object is a long rod with regular marks on it, and the other object is moving past close to it along its length. Then we can measure time by how far the other object has moved along the length of the first object. That is all we need!!

If you insist on 'events', then consider: as the other object passes each mark on the first object, that is sufficient to define an event!

All events occur in space and time, by definition.

Two objects moving past each other is indeed sufficient to define events and so mark the passage of time.

If you had defined the objects as two ideal geometric points, then 'space' would be a problem, since you would have no reference for distance. But if at least one object has a finite physical size, then we have some reference to express the distance between them, and that then allows change to be defined, ie changes in the ratio between separation and size of at least one object. Change is the minimum requirement for Time to be meaningful, or alternatively, 'change' only can occur if there is a dimension of Time.

If you want to express it in terms of events, then each event can be defined to be when the distance between the objects reaches a whole number times the diameter of one of the objects.

There, I have analysed your idea, as presented in your first post. It is ultimately trivial, I am sorry.

Most of your ideas are not new, the rest are based on misunderstandings, such as what is necessary to define an 'event'.

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

darth_josh
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
Offline
This is testing my

This is testing my patience.

http://flashforward.web.cern.ch/flashforward/excerpt2/

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.

Eloise
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
Offline
Truden wrote:Eloise wrote:

screw it... double post.

Eloise
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
Offline
Truden wrote: Eloise wrote:

Truden wrote:

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,

That's not so Truden. Relativity makes perfect sense without conscious observation. You've probably been confused by stories of Einstein developing the theory from thoughts about observation in a moving reference frame. Those things are not required for relativity to work, they are just ways of coming to the conclusion that space and time are not constant in contrast to light velocity.

Quote:

Yes, modern science may use the notion "change" (or "step" ) as Time, but Time still stays in science as property of the Universe.

It's quite more involved than that, Truden. Time cannot be ignored since it is an inextricable part of how we structure our experience, however, models of physical reality that do not have time as a property of the universe in them are studied in science - they are called time-independent.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com

Marquis
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
Offline
Truden wrote:how childishly

Truden wrote:
how childishly illogical science can be

If you think that is bad, you need to consider how childishly illogical nature can be.

Anyway, while you guys were having fun I read through it all once again, and I fail to see how anything in Mr. Truden's proposition is inconsistent with my stating that time = gravity (non-spatial relation between events and yada yada). Consequently, instead of stating for instance that gravity warps spacetime, we can observe how an increase in local gravity moves towards and finally reaches a "boiling point" from whence it approaches a shift in existential conditions (an event horizon) before collapsing out of measurable spacetime coordinates alltogether.

Time in an isolated context can be both the temporal difference between events A and B as the duration of event C (which can even include the set A,B). There is no "continuum" of time that doesn't include variables in the gravitational field.

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