How to explain motion if time does not exist

It exists in measurement because "measurement" is spacetime itself every movement, every differences occur in this "measurement".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, I would say the substance of spacetime is distance, area, and volume. Time looks like distance in spacetime (when it's abstracted a certain way), but does time-area or time-volume exist? Don't think so.

You aren't very good at this, are you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, and thus both only have meaning with respect to objects, hence intrinsic.

No, Minkowski space, used extensively in SR, includes objects (as demonstrated in every example or thought experiment of SR), just no account of gravity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Those aren't substances those are abstractions that ignore the time component of spacetime.

 

Oh, so you're just trolling. OK, let's rock and roll, suckah.

(1) In post #49 I referenced the reciprocal of 1-v²/c², noting the singularity that occurs when v=c. You came at me several times with everything except the only thing that should have been obvious, particularly since relativity was on the plate:

\(\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-c^2/v^2}}\)


so you failed a...let's say: third semester question. And that's being generous.

(2) If you think anyone cares that a perfect vacuum is hard to find, or that you can refine my remarks by one zillionth of a percent by reminding us that an occasional particle passes through best of vacuums, then forget it. The free space velocity of light is exactly equal to the geometric mean of the free space permittivity and permeability, period. ...For this I will allow that you may not encounter the concept until your third semester...

However, your belief that impedance is created by imposing the appropriate E and H field shows a naïveté of pre-freshman caliber. You had a chance to prove yourself by finishing the math, but you quit as soon as you grabbed the first thing you found, which was the dual for Ohm's law. So at this point you move back two squares.

I love the idea, though, that I can build a device with an E knob and an H knob, hook it up to my mystery medium and BANG I've got the ultimate device for turning any substance into some other substance. What a crock. You fail.

The correct answer is:

\({ Z }_{ 0 }=\sqrt { \frac { { \mu }_{ 0 } }{ { \epsilon }_{ 0 } } } \)

Which has nothing to with a field, until the field impinges on the medium. Then and only then do the E and H fields arise, stumbling up out of a near field excitation until all of the effective energy is coupled into the vacuum from out of the source, and only because the forcing function was either an electric potential or a magnetic loop, and then and only then is the condition Z=E/H satisfied.

You failed miserably on this, so we're going to have to put you back in the remedial class.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the really inspiring feature of the vacuum (as I was trying say repeatedly amid all the belching and farting) is that it is due to its instrinsic impedance - a constant - that light speed is established to be the approx 1 ft/ns that we have come to know and love.

\(c\quad =\quad \frac { 1 }{ \sqrt { { \mu }_{ 0 }{ \epsilon }_{ 0 } } } \)

This is worthy of meditation. c defines the ultimate relationship between space and time, and this relationship is entirely confined to the intrinsic properties of space: permittivity and permeability. There is some deeper insight still, but I'll leave that for later, after you get past your freshman exams.

(3) Since I never said anything about the "loaf" being real, the concept is yours alone and you are arguing with yourself. Thrash away, just don't bust a jugular trying to get out of the straight jacket you buckled yourself into.

(4) The intersection of asynchronous timelines is the consequence of relativity which you claim to understand, but which, thus far, has defeated you. Same for the rest of your mincing of my actual ideas into hamburger. I might as well be talking to a meatgrinder. At some point (assuming you're at an accredited school) they will teach you the Socratic method...until then, at least ask before you start grandstanding. You might actually learn something.

I'm going to wander back over to the general philosophy conversation now, where, as you might discover merely by reading my actual words at face value: I wasn't trying to prove anything. Every bubble in all the styrofoam produced here so far has been inflated with your own hot air, not mine.

 

No, Minkowski spacetime in SR is what light travels through (in straight lines), none of the objects introduced by any thought experiment is subject to gravitational energy.

 

You don't know much about this subject, do you?

 

@arfa brane

I know enough about relativity to show that you're wrong about time not being intrinsic to anything.​

 

You've said that time is intrinsic to matter. You've also said time might be some kind of energy.

How does matter store time? How does observation get access to this intrinsic property? Can you show that time is an intrinsic property of anything? All you've shown so far is that you can use a keyboard.

 

arfa brane

The measurement is not the thing being measured. The map is not the territory. Time is as much a part of spacetime as left or right, up or down or near or far is. You cannot designate an event in space alone, otherwise you might be waiting around observing that point in space a long time, or you may have already missed it altogether. Space and time are one thing(spacetime), inseparable and changes in one affects the other profoundly. Therefore you are simply wrong to say time does not exist, nothing can exist, change or move without doing so within both time and space.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What's your take on Einstein's quote? What do you think he was saying?

 

Do tell why all events aren't exactly the same in location and in time interval? Why aren't all events "one" in location and time interval?

 

Because observers can be in relative motion, they see different "past" and "future" times. That means they would see a different history for any event(s).

 

@arfa brane

Are you saying observers can't experience "one event" in location and time interval even hypothetically? You're saying that there are events then not "one event". So if they are in relative motion you do realize that means time is intrinsic to matter and exists?​

 

Are you saying that time dilation requires mass?

 

Space is where events are located physically.

There are multiple events because space has multiple locations in it, but the time that events "occur" is observer-dependent.

How does it follow that time is intrinsic to matter if it's observer-dependent?

 

I didn't say anything about that but I believe according to relativity rest mass is required for time dilation.

 

Einstein was talking specifically about the view that time is a separate, constant thing, he called that illusion. He went on to say that physicist now understand that time is relative to the frame of the observer. It was at this same time he used the mind experiment of the twins, one of which travelled at high speed to a place far away and then returned to find his twin an old man while he was still young. He was talking specifically of the illusion the old man had that time was passing the same for the whole Universe because most of the length of time he had experienced his twin had not experienced.

Time is an intregal part of spacetime, movement in space affects the passage of time, extreme movement in space affects the passage of time extremely, ultimate movement in space(speed of light)stops time's passage altogether. In addition, gravity also affects time's passage(gravity is a warpage of space, which in turn affects time), extreme gravity slows time down, ultimate gravity in this Universe(at the event horizon of a Black Hole)stops time altogether(and acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity, the same effects apply). These are all well documented effects, your GPS would not work without compensation for the fact that the satelites are in freefall(not in a gravity well), and they are in orbit at high speed, both of which affects the passage of time relative to you on the ground. Being in freefall means that the satelite experiences faster time, moving at high speed means it passes slower. Both must be carefully calculated and the clocks on the satelite adjusted accordingly.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Right, he showed that the Newtonian concept of "absolute time" is wrong.

Define "the passage of time". Is that an integral part of spacetime?

 

The reason I asked was: when you said

I thought maybe you were associating the mass of matter with the cause of time dilation, where you refer to time as intrinsic to matter, in the case of relative motion.

And the other question that comes to mind is that mass is not necessary to compute the time dilation, only velocity. So that was why I brought it up.