Does time really exist like we think it is?

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

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

    Messages:
    4,304
    Oh, I see. You're an Einstein denier. Are you known as 'myuncle' on PhysForum?

    There's no point to any further disucssion. You deny observational and experimental results.

    Your motto should be, in the words of Adam Savage from Mythbusters, 'I deny your reality, and substitute my own'.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    5,105
    By being centered and remaining centered between two light sources and simultaneously emitting light from both, recording the time of departure from sources (the same), and recording the time of arrival at the midpoint. From there you can figure out the distance each light traveled to reach the midpoint. If the distances are different the midpoint receiver had an absolute velocity, which can be calculated from the distance and time of light travel.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2010
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    4,304
    This is simple nonsense. If you're half way between two sources, how do you record the time of departure? Are you using two clocks? How are they synched?

    You don't understand chapter 9 at all.

    Anyway, no more.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    5,105
    Three clocks, one at each source and one at the midpoint.

    I understand chapter 9 in depth, do you?
     
  8. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,215
    The two light sources are far away from you, which makes "simultaneously emitting light from both" an impossible task if you're speaking in absolute terms. The only way you could claim they were "simultaneous" is if the light reached you from both sources at the same time...hence the time of arrival at the midpoint will be simultaneous as required by the experiment...therefore your absolute velocity will ALWAYS be zero.
     
  9. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105

    Who said they need to be far away? You seem to be in denial because your test equipment is inadequate. Tisk tisk, you've fallen into old ways my friend.

    That is laughable that because two things impact you simultaneously that you say they departed at the same time and traveled the same distance. Bwahahahahahaha
     
  10. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,215
    Hey bro I'm pretty sure I'm the only one here giving you enough respect to seriously discuss this topic. I'm giving you a chance so don't get trollish on me.

    Anyway, if you would like to discuss the "simultaneity problem" I'd be happy to as long as you don't laugh like Bowser again. I'm pretty sure you're going to find that absolute syncing of the remote clocks without light exchange is problematic.
     
  11. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    He doesn't find it problematic because he doesn't consider it.

    This is a long time denier of relativity and Einstein. He can't understand it, so it must be wrong.
     
  12. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,112
    Motor Daddy,

    Let's say that you perform your test on the surface of the earth. Let's also say that the light rays arrive at the midpoint simultaneously from all sides.

    Would you conclude that the earth is not really rotating on its axis? Would you also conclude the earth is not revolving around the sun? That the Milky Way galaxy is not rotating, etc.?

    Or would you conclude that your concept of an "absolute motion test" is flawed in some way?
     
  13. Shadow1 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,160
    waow, my thread have been ocupied !!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    D
    i'll come back later to read all this

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    interesting paradox that time is. it wouldn't be detectable or wouldn't exist if there was no change.

    one could say time doesn't really exist. the past is over and the future is not here and only the present exists. the only reason the concept of time exists at all is that we have a memory. without memory, there would be no understanding of the past or planning for the future.

    time doesn't exist, just the moment.
     

Share This Page