How to explain motion if time does not exist

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Secret, Jan 13, 2012.

  1. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Have you tried looking up the meaning of extrinsic or intrinsic? You agree that distance is intrinsic to space (and by extension to spacetime) but you aren't sure if coordinates are or not?
    I'm not sure what to make of something that doesn't have "substance" but is still physical.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    I'm not sure what to make of something that doesn't have "substance" but is still physical.

    . . .well, duh!! . . . . a lot of us on Sciforums fit that mold!! (<--humor here!)
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2012
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152

    All mangled, foobar.

    The prevailing notion is special relativity. By removing the word "reciprocal" from my statement, yielding your panic button for division by zero, you conveniently solved for the denominator. Wunderbar. "Loaf" was the dumbed-down term Brian Greene used to model the continuum graphically as a loaf of bread cut at angles that depend on relative velocity. I couldn't remember what he had compared it to, so I said (many pages ago) "I'll call it an extrusion."

    My statement about permittivity and permeability refer to the intrinsic impedance of free space, which is more appropriately classified as an intrinsic property than your non sequitur idea that time is intrinsic. Since light speed is defined as the reciprocal of the geometric mean of these two intrinsic properties, I gave this as the better way of linking the intrinsic with the ephemeral.

    I don't really care about consensus, I'm standing outside the meatloaf that you're gagging on. I gave a really simple answer to the OP, drawing from one interesting graphic that Brian Greene gives the world, and that's all there is to it.

    Since this is a general philosophy thread, I'm not interested in bickering with you over trivia that you precipitate out of the solution I rendered. Anyone can pour acid into a base and get the same result. So far you have not even been able to repeat back to me what I said. Now who doesn't know what they are talking about? :bugeye:
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2012
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Special relativity is what says exactly as I told you:
    "For a given event, any event occurring outside of its past or future light cones cannot be affected by or affect that event." This means that your assertion that "every point on the real world timeline is accessible" is not prevailing, not supported by SR, and woowoo nonsense.

    Unless you have parentheses, division is done before subtraction, and the reciprocal of v²/c² is c²/v², which if v=c, still equals 1. So that makes no difference at all.

    Brian Greene's "loaf" was an imaginary analogy to to help explain the relativity of simultaneity, not a reality. It is completely predicated upon assuming all time rates are always equal, which SR tells us they are not, as they require a Lorentz transform into the proper frame. Seriously, try reading a book instead of taking analogies on TV for scientific fact.

    "Free space" is an idealized perfect vacuum, which cannot be found to exist in reality. Thus the impedance of free space is merely calculated as such, based solely on what we know of the behavior intrinsic to electromagnetism. The impedance of free space, Z0 = |E|/|H|. That means that the impedance of free space is the relation of a magnetic field to its electric field. Get that? It's intrinsic to these fields, not space itself.

    Of course you don't care about scientific consensus. You'd rather be spouting whatever nonsense you've come up with based solely on your naive understanding of physics derived from a TV show. Read a book instead.

    Of course you want to dismiss fact when someone shows your nonsense for what it is. Now if you wish to remain strictly in the philosophical realm, so be it. I can, and have, made all the same points in either field. You are simply unable to recognize my duplication of the actual facts you have a very poor grasp of.
     
  8. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106

    I know their meaning I just don't know what you mean by time being extrinsic to everything whether you mean it's just an abstraction.


    Actually I believe distance is an abstraction assigned to measurement and coordinates too are abstractions.


    Something like spacetime being physical is largely meant as being intrinsic to matter a massless photon doesn't have substance but it's intrinsic to matter so it's physical.
     
  9. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    I mean time isn't intrinsic to anything.
    But distance in space is physical, because space is physical.
    Photons are massless but they do have substance, otherwise you wouldn't need eyes, would you?
    Spacetime is not "intrinsic to matter" because it can be empty of matter, including photons.

    Maybe you should at least review what you know about the meaning of intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic means: "is a part of", extrinsic means: "is not a part of".

    Distance is intrinsic to space (so are area and volume), which means distance is a part of space. Coordinates aren't. We assign coordinates externally and arbitrarily, if they were a part of space we wouldn't need to do this.
     
  10. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Distance is a relationship between objects.

    There is no perfect vacuum, completely devoid of matter or energy. You can only imagine it as empty.
     
  11. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    @arfa brane



    Apparently all you have are assertions and you have been given valid arguments consistent with countless observations which you are oblivious to.​



    I understand that bit but in that case it shouldn't have any physical meaning to us whatsoever yet it does. That means it must be intrinsic to something or vice-versa.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2012
  12. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    So is time.
    But doing so gives you Minkowski spacetime.

    Rubbish. Name one observation that makes "a massless photon doesn't have substance but it's intrinsic to matter so it's physical" a valid argument.
    Time does seem to have a "physical meaning" to us, and yet we can't store it or use it, all we can do is measure it. But Einstein claims that what we measure doesn't really exist.
     
  13. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    Minkowski spacetime is an abstraction while spacetime is just plain real and physical.


    Photons are absorbed or emitted by matter which means they are intrinsic to matter which in turn means they are physical.


    We haven't found any way of using it but it is basically measurement itself because it's spacetime and inseparable from space even hypothetically.


    So Einstein is saying that when we measure matter it doesn't exist? Spacetime is measurement itself.
     
  14. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    So your argument says that matter absorbs and emits photons which have no substance.

    The substance of photons is energy, and energy is substantial even if it is an abstraction. It's ok to abstract physical things, Newton did that with forces and with mass.
    No, he says that when we measure time it doesn't exist. Way to take something out of context, dude.

    Is it? How does spacetime 'measure', what's the process?
     
  15. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    What I mean by photon not having substance is simply that it's not matter.



    No one abstracts physical things because physical things remain physical and abstractions remain abstract.
     
  16. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    What you mean, and what a photon is look different. A photon is not without substance.

    Next time you're close to something hot, see if you can feel your skin reacting to all the infrared energy it's emitting.
    Total fail. Scientists have been abstracting physical things for millenia. Because it's useful to use mathematical formulas (abstractions) instead of using physical things themselves.
     
  17. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    arfa brane
    Einstein SHOWED that time not only exists, but that it is an integral part of spacetime, therefore the Universe and cannot be seperated from it. Traveling at the speed of light in any direction means time stops for the particle doing the traveling. If that particle is a photon of light it arrives 13.7 billion ly away(the farthest distance possible since the beginning of time)having experienced no time at all. This illustrates the connection between time and space that is not separable. It also illustrates that time is relative to the particle's speed through space RELATIVE to any other particle. Not only does time exist but it is tied to space by inseperable bonds in the ratio of the speed of light.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    What the skin reacts to is sourced at the increase in the motion of atoms and atoms have both mass and energy.



    I mean the physical things do not just transform into abstractions they remain physical when they are abstracted.
     
  19. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    How does the motion of atoms increase if photons have no substance? That's what you said, then you said you meant photons aren't matter. The second part is true but photons do have substance so you are just wrong about it. Live with it.
    Sure. A day is still a day even though you can look at the date on a calendar. (??)
     
  20. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    He went on to say: "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion".What he means is that the distinction is relative to observers of events. Since we make this distinction in order to measure intervals of time, he is claiming that time itself doesn't really exist. It's entirely extrinsic to your observational point of view.
     
  21. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Wrong, it exists BUT it is relative to all observers. Einstein was talking about the rigid time that was the paradigm before relativity, that kind of idea about time IS an illusion(IE time as a separate thing that is the same for all space and all observers). He was not saying time does not exist, but that it actually passes at different rates for each observer.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2012
  22. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    If it exists, where is it? I would say the answer is "in measurement".
     
  23. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106

    I meant photons aren't matter but maybe then spacetime has substance too.



    A day and date are both abstractions.
     

Share This Page