What is "time"

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Saint, Nov 9, 2014.

  1. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Some of what you think of as mainstream science is just popscience junk. Really.

    It isn't as obvious as the nose on your face. I can show you the nose on your face. And space, and motion, and other things too. But you can't show me time.


    I watched it. Nice. I like to think that I learned all about my own confirmation bias about eight years back. I remember looking in the mirror and saying you believe in things for which there is no evidence at all.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    You look in the mirror a lot, hm? That answers some things...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    I don't see reflected light of an object as any evidence that time or the past does not exist.
    And again, the confirmation bias you keep mentioning, can be applied both ways.
    That along with the fact that you have published a book, and obviously would like to see that do well on the public market.
    I wish you the best in that regards.
    I know I'm continually going over old ground, but from my point of view, the "old ground"I'm going over, is forever being ignored by those proposing that time is not real or does not exist.
    The most logical point so far that reveals itself, is the fact that the subject of time is still debatable and open.
    That should be the first thing those claiming time does not exist must accept to overcome the confirmation bias that they themselves are guilty of....

    Again my question has yet to be resolved. Can any of my friends who sit there, moment after moment, in the course of the progress of time, show me any scientifically viable realm, world, or Universe, that does not have time as an integral part of its existence and reality.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    And most of what you tell us is your own fantasy, as you have demonstrated with your continued refusal to provide evidence when questioned. Pease stop polluting this thread with your insults to professional physicists and your own dogmatic fantasies.

    Unless you can suddenly produce an application where you can show how "inhomogeneous space" leads to the fall of a pencil (your own chosen example) or to the rotation of a galaxy (your own chosen example to attack the integrity of professional physicists), your claims are baseless.
     
  8. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    But his mirror supports his fantasy! How can you not see that?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    I actually see that as a compliment coming from someone who can sit there day after day, claiming the nonsensical anti GR rubbish that you have claimed.

    Again, for the dummies.....I may not be able to hold time in my hand, but the fact that I am here, 13.83 billion years after space and time [henceforth known as spacetime] came into existence and evolved over TIME, to what I see today....a micro second ago....a minute ago.

    Oh, and before I let you off the hook Farsight, you keep on about clocks.....Do you remember chinglu? He's another anti SR/GR novice, driven by delusions of a magic pixie in the sky, rather then delusions of grandeur, such as yourself.
    He often used that same argument.
    Even Einstein's "static Universe" and the CC to adhere to that had a time component.
    Again, my view on time, I'm happy to say, aligns with what most of the experts are saying, and gauging carefully what they have said, I see loads of common sense and logic, despite the fact that we have plenty more to learn about the indispensable nature of time.......along with of course space, spacetime, gravity, and matter and energy.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yep, I find using the reflective properties of mirrors as an argument against the nature of time is rather grasping at straws.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Even Issac Newton acknowledged in "Principia Mathematica" the inevitable flow of time.
    The time that we are familiar with, and that we all take for granted, and that brings the future to the present, and dismisses the present to the past.
    It is the uniform passing/flowing of the rate of time [within each FoR] that enables us to construct our equations of motion and how objects and their positions change over the course of time.
     
  12. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    I'm not anti-GR. I'm pro-GR. Instead I'm anti-woo. Like the woo you believed in wherein space is falling inwards in a gravitational field. That totally utterly absolutely contradicts GR. So much so it's totally laughable. It's on a par with Chicken Little.

    You're the one who believes in pixie magic, so much so that you dismiss Einstein and the evidence and bona-fide physics and try to defend that with abuse.

    You're talking rubbish. You believe in popscience trash and try to defend by saying "it's mainstream" when it isn't, because you can't offer any evidence to support your belief. Because there isn't any. Now are you going to admit that you can't show me time? or show me time passing or flowing? No. So why don't you run along and go play with your multiverse.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Sure, I'm doing that in "my present" but I'm looking into the past of Alpha Cetauri 4.3 years ago. And as we all know, each FoR is as valid as the other.
    I'm not looking at a reflection.
    The same that if I'm watching you from a safe distance falling into a BH, I will never see you actually cross the EH, just gradually fade from the receptive properties of my viewer and redshifted. From your own position though, you will happily [or unhappily

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ] cross that same EH without any undue effects. [ignoring tidal gravitationall effects]
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Take it easy Farsight....
    No, I don't accept much of what you say, or your claims, or your misquotes, misinterpretations and outright misleading and "out of context"quotes.
    Albert would no doubt be turning in his grave!
     
  15. tashja Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    715
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Your dishonesty continues unabated.
    The space/waterfall analogy, is just that...an analogy...Much as is light cones and a myriad of other scientific explanations. You have been told that many times.
    The absolute crap that has been claimed in various threads concerns itself with concepts such as the speed of light is not constant, light is seen to stop in all FoR's at the EH, and Time is seen to stop in all FoR's at the same EH.
    Like I said up there...The great man would be turning in his grave.
    Do better Farsight.

    http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
     
  17. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Take that up with Don Koks who said this on the Baez website:

    "...In that sense, we could say that the "ceiling" speed of light in the presence of gravity is higher than the "floor" speed of light. Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "... according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [Einstein means speed here] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers...
     
  18. tashja Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    715
    You're welcome, Farsight. I agree, the language can get too technical at times lol.

    Hi, Matt. What are your thoughts regarding nonlocality? Can nonlocality be used as an argument or proof that time does not exist, or should we sacrifice space for the sake of time?
     
  19. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    This is more like it. I've seen so many discussions about time degenerate on other forums, it's a real pleasure to see such a wide variety of ideas here on the subject. I nominate this thread as one for the permanent archives.
     
  20. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    I thought Lee Smolin's response was rather dismissive and irrelevant myself. IMHO he didn't address Billy's point, and falsely accused him of a fallacy. Utterly unconvincing.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    No, I'm taking it up with you. The speed of light in one's own FoR, is always, but always constant....Just as light is NEVER seen to be stopped at an EH, and time is never actually been seen to stop, in fact the local FoR's of both, see nothing out of the ordinary happening.

    And you have been advised of that by many experts, whom you have dismissed.
    Quite typical actually for most alternative hypothesis and pseudoscience adherents.
     
  22. tashja Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    715
    He made a similar argument here (skip to 1:04:34):

     
  23. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    I though he addressed the issue there, but groan, they were talking about a universe made of mathematics. And Lee Smolin then talked about "passing moments" and the "flow of time". Time doesn't literally pass or flow. Such is just a figure of speech. A clock is not some cosmic gas meter. It doesn't really measure the flow of time.

    Only because when light slows down you slow down too, because electromagnetic radiation and matter are "made of the same essence"

    That's what some say, but the "field interpretation" of GR referred to by Kevin Brown says a clock tops at the event horizon, and that's the end of the story.

    I haven't dismissed anybody. And as for experts, Don Koks agrees with me about the variable speed of light, and Tom Moore agrees with me that the light doesn't get out because it's stopped. And my references to Einstein and Shapiro etc demonstrate that I'm not the guy pushing alternative hypotheses or pseudoscience.
     

Share This Page