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
    It's not the rate at which time passes that changes, it's the rate at which the watch measured the time that changed. You just saying the watch changed rates acknowledges that there is a proper rate and an improper rate. The proper being the standard and the improper being the substandard.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,215
    Well that's one way to think of it, but it's not just the watch's rate that is altered because we claimed that this is a "perfect watch" which we monitored the entire flight without any problems. It's also the rate of Cesium oscillations, the rate at which we age, the velocity of the rotating shaft, EVERYTHING changes; and when EVERYTHING changes, NOTHING changes because we have no way to measure that change. The only thing we would notice is that our brother on the surface of the Earth appears to be slowing down a little...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    4,304
    No. Redshift does not alter the velocity of light, just it's frequency.

    How does one alter the rate of oscillation of an atom? They don't have winding stems, nor do they have any mechanism to change.

    The watch's rate changes because the rate of time passing changes.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    5,105
    So you understand that there is a change, but disregard the change because you can't measure the change?

    Do you acknowledge that there is a way to measure absolute velocity?
     
  8. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,215
    Yes, that's another way to think of it, except there is no "proper rate". Relativity says that all frames are on equal standing when it comes to claiming that "they are the proper rate". It's very anthropocentric of you to think that "standing on Earth" produces the proper time passage rate. Sitting in empty space doesn't count either because you have no way to know if you're truly "sitting" or really sailing through space at a million miles an hour (compared to another guy who also claims he is sitting in empty space)...
     
  9. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Absolute velocity does not exist. All velocity is relative.
     
  10. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,215
    No, there is no way to measure absolute velocity that I'm aware of.
     
  11. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105

    Since we are earthlings, and it's our distance and time standards, we must live by our own standards. We have already defined a second, and already defined a meter.
     
  12. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Wrong.

    A light traveling though a vacuum travels a specific distance in a specific duration.
     
  13. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    See my "A train, three clocks, and an observer" thread.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

    Messages:
    4,304
    Sorry, you're wrong. Distance and duration are relative. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant, no matter what the relative speed is because distance and duration are not absolute.

    If distance and duration were absolute, you would measure a different speed of light when you were moving towards the light source than you would when you were moving away from the source.
     
  15. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
  16. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,982
    Can you define what absolute velocity is?
    You should know that velocity is relative, for instance, if you throw something it has a velocity relative to your position on the surface of the earth.

    Since the surface of the earth has an angular velocity and an orbital velocity, both you and the object you threw have a velocity relative to the earth's center of mass. The sun is also moving through space, etc.

    Therefore, all velocities must be relative (to other velocities).
    The distance light travels can be affected by gravity, we know that gravity bends light so that the distance light travels depends on the curvature of space, and spacetime.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2010
  17. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    The source is irrelevant after the light is emitted. Also, if you are moving towards the light the distance and time the light travels to reach you is less, and if you are moving in the same direction as the light it takes more time to reach you.
     
  18. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    I have a serious problem with that link, specifically chapter 9. Care to discuss it and defend it?
     
  19. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Wrong, every object in motion has an absolute velocity. Just because you don't know what that velocity is doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
     
  20. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,982
    Motor Daddy is stuck in the 17th century.
     
  21. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Everything was going fairly well until Einstein snowed a bunch of people with his BS and made science take a wrong turn. You're off on a dead end adventure.
     
  22. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    As judged by what? You're standing on the surface of the earth, a rocket is streaking towards the moon. Relative to you, the rocket is moving at 25,000 mph. I am sitting in another rocket traveling right next to the first one. Relative to me, the rocket is stationary. So you say the rocket it moving, I say it's not. Who's right. And what is the rocket's 'absolute' velocity? And again, relative to what?

    How do you measure absolute velocity?
     
  23. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,215
    I thought I smelled an ulterior motive with you Motor Daddy...
    Anyway, you could arbitrarily assign a given frame (such as the frame which is stationary to the center of mass of the observable universe) to be the preferred one, and then you could assign absolute velocities to everything. But what does that get you? The velocity of light remains the same in all frames. Do you claim differently?
     

Share This Page