Does time really exist like we think it is?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Shadow1, Dec 7, 2010.

  1. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    So where is the caseum-133, the sun, the moon, the Earth, Jupiter???
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    So where is the cesium-133, the sun, the moon, the Earth, Jupiter???

    What I'm getting at is, it can be anywhere and take a different duration, but the light doesn't change speed.

    If you say the duration changes with gravity, but light speed is constant, then you are saying the distance light travels depends on where the cesium is being measured. That is absurd! A duration is a duration, regardless of what happens during that duration.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Yes.

    9192631770 cycles will take longest on the sun, next on Jupiter, then Earth, then the moon. This is true of ALL physical processes.

    While the speed of light does not change, (it is always measured at 300,000 km/second), the length of a kilometer and the duration of a second does change, relative to other frames at different levels of gravitational potential, and relative to other inertial frames in motion.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    I can agree with it taking a different duration depending on its environment, but you can't change the standard duration just because the cesium changes environment.
     
  8. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    The second and the meter are already defined, they don't change.

    You can't define standards for measuring distance and time and then allow the standards to change!
     
  9. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    There is nothing absolute about duration. The relative rate that time passes at changes according to relative motion and relative gravitational potential.
     
  10. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    There is nothing relative about duration. There is duration, that's it. Duration is not relative!
     
  11. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    They do change. Within a given inertial frame, they will always measure the same, but when different frames are compared, both seconds and meters will be different. They change BECAUSE the speed of light is always measured to be the same regardless of the relative motion.

    That turns out not to be the case.

    This is very basic Relativity.
     
  12. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Give me an example of relative duration. I'm not talking about relative velocity, I want an example of relative duration.
     
  13. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    K_mesons travelling at relativistic velocities take longer to decay than K_mesons travelling slower. (when measured by a stationary observer).

    These are the same subatomic particles, undergoing the same decay processes.

    Also, atomic clocks on jet airplanes run slower than 'stationary' clocks.
     
  14. sly1 Heartless Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    692
    Interesting, however I firmly believe the concept of time is an "illusory anomaly" that is only measurable through the perception of movement. The illusion that is "time" is extremely useful as a tool for humans to measure and interpret locations etc.

    The analogy you came up with regarding the different days for different planets is directly related to the movement (speed) of those objects, not necessarily the time. Even aging is nothing more than movement of objects within space. As cells move through duplication, DNA unravels and changes is structure which reduces the bodies ability to duplicate correctly, which causes aging...

    Age is a representation of the overall accumulated movements within the human body that cause what we are made up of to start transforming and dying off. Even in death movement has not ended. Nothing on this planet is "still" or void of movement as this entire planet is moving on so many levels everything within and on it is moving as well, even though the perception may cause the illusion its stationary.

    The atoms that make up everything are themselves moving constantly...

    Here is an example of how "time" is a perceptional illusion:

    If you looking into a completely white room with a chair sitting in the middle, and were forced to acknowledge nothing but the room and the chair, time would be completely irrelevant as you can perceive no movement.

    In your mind because of how the human biology works you would have an "inner-clock" that would make you "feel" the passing of time but again, that is "outside" of the room so you cannot acknowledge that.

    Lets say 5 hours pass. What in the white room with the chair has changed to lead you to believe time existed? Nothing....time does not exist in that room, and it wont exist until you can perceive movement/change.

    In movies and TV to even express what a "time-void" environment would be like what do they have to do? They stop everything from doing what?

    Moving....everything has to stop moving to illustrate this phenomena known as "time".

    So I conclude that without movement time doesn't exist and the perception of time doesn't exist. So time is nothing more than the observation of movement. Time is an anomaly because it cannot be perceived by itself, it has to be perceived through movement.
     
  15. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Again, you are talking about motion, and relative velocities. I asked you to give me an example of relative duration. Nobody disputes that clocks run slower and faster. Your misunderstanding is that you think because a clock runs slower or faster that the duration changes. A second is a specific duration, which has nothing to do with how fast a clock runs, or how fast or slow particles decay.

    Do you understand what a duration is?
     
  16. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,215
    Yes, you're saying the same thing that I did, basically.
    Motor Daddy: Holding the Cesium-133 in your hand, "duration" will always be the same...a second = a second = a second. Calculating (or observing) oscillations in a piece of Cesium-133 that is moving relative to us, or is closer to a gravity source, changes that and now the duration of a local second does NOT equal the duration of a second in that other frame. As AlexG said, this is pretty elementary Relativity.
     
  17. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Yes I do, but I don't think you do.

    As second is defined as 9192631770 cycles of cesium. That is the duration of a second. That's how much time it takes a second to pass. And it is different in different frameworks, according to gravity and relative motion.

    Duration is not absolute. It is relative.
     
  18. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    There is duration, and there is means of measuring duration. Cesium-133 is a means of measuring duration. If the measuring device changes, all bets are off as to using it to measure with. You can not change the terms of the measuring device and still use it to measure. If your watch starts to run fast do you rely on it? Of course not, because it is no longer the standard.
     
  19. Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,348
    There is no duration independent of space and motion. They are interdependent.

    ~Raithere
     
  20. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,215
    No, you are mistaken. Without a way to measure it, "duration" has no meaning. If a second cannot be defined in terms of motion, how shall we define it that would be universally coherent?

    Second (n): a duration of time defined by how long it takes Motor Daddy to recite "one-Mississippi, two-Mississippi"?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    The measuring device does not change. It is still 9192631770 cycles of cesium-133. That is the duration of a second.
     
  22. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    and if the rate of cycles changes according to its environment, so does the duration, right? Bwahahahahahahaha That is tooooooo funny!

    My watch runs fast so that changes the duration! Bwahahahahaha
     
  23. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    So if ALL physical processes take longer, it's because your watch isn't working right?


    As you said, bwahahahahah.

    You have a fixed idea of what duration is. You're wrong. Counting 1-mississippi will take longer at the surface than in orbit, but you won't ever see a difference. To you, 1-mississippi is a fixed and unchanging duration.

    OTOH, you can't argue with ignorance. But the next time you use a GPS, don't believe what it tells you. Since the GPS system compensates for differing rates of time, it must be wrong.
     

Share This Page