How to explain motion if time does not exist

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

  1. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    You sure don't follow very well. I specifically said that Minkowski space didn't account for gravity and that it did make use of objects that time could be intrinsic to.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,696
    I see. So you're saying time is intrinsic to objects which aren't subject to gravity?

    Or are you saying the use of such objects means time is intrinsic to them?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    arfa brane

    Atomic clocks count the change of Cesium atoms between certain energy levels to measure times passage(9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom=one second, the International Standard). They are extremely accurate(a few seconds off over a million years)and dead reliable. Again, the measurement is not the thing being measured, time passes whether or not it is measured, experienced or noted.

    However, if you take two of those clocks, synchronize them exactly, then take one of them and strap it to the seat of an airliner that takes off and flys for a while and then compare the two you will find that time passed for the frequent flyer at a slower rate than the one that stayed home. The same thing will occur if one is on the moon, but for three reasons 1. the moon clock is in a weaker gravity field, making it run a tiny bit faster 2. the one on Earth is rotating much faster with the speed of the Earth's surface going around once a day vs. the moon's orbital velocity and once a month rotation making it slower and 3. the Earth has a much deeper gravity well making the Earthbound clock run slower. The thing that is important is that the differences in travel through space directly affects the real time measured by the various clocks. This could not happen unless time and space are both part of the same system, spacetime. Time is relative to the frame within which the clock exists, in all cases what the clocks measured was the actual passage of time in it's frame(IE the vibration between ground states of the Cesium atoms did not vary in any of them).

    If the movement through space directly influences the real passage of time for the thing that is moving how can time and space be separate things? How can something not exist if it is measurable to such a high degree of accuracy? How can two things not be connected if changes in one repeatedly and reliably causes changes in the other in all situations? Space and time are one thing, spacetime.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    5,425

    Define moving through space. Space is volume, and volume is the three dimensional aspect of distance. If you are speaking about "moving" through space you are merely saying you are traveling a distance in the volume of space. So you are stating that you are traveling in an absolute frame, which is not relative to any other object or matter. The concept of time being what a clock measures is not accurate unless ALL clocks remain in sync at all times. Do you understand the term simultaneously? What does that mean to you?


    No space and time are not one thing, they are two distinct and very different concepts. Look at the definition of a meter. You have the concept of light traveling a length of path in space, and you have the concept of the duration of travel. The two concepts are not the same, therefore space and time are not the same. There is distance and there is time.
     
  8. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Motor Daddy

    There are no "absolute frames", space itself is warped by mass. Near a Black Hole all straight lines curve around to form circles(we call that point the Event Horizon). Time is not the measurement of time. Clocks measure time but that measurement is not time. All clocks are not synchronous because time is relative to the frame where it is being measured. That is fact.

    Then why and how does travel in space affect travel in time? Why does travel at light speed stop time altogether? Why do GPS satelites have to have their clocks adjusted to be synchronous to those on the ground? Why does an atomic clock on a flying aircraft keep a different, slower time while flying only to return to synchronicity when parked at the airport?

    Then why is a meter a different length when it is moving at near lightspeed(length in the direction of travel shrinks to zero at lightspeed, length at 90 degrees is unaffected)?

    Learn something...

    http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec07.html

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Are you trying to tell me that volume is warped by mass? Volume is not a physical object. Volume is nothing more than 3 dimensional distance. Distance can't be warped. There exist at any given point in time (say 12:00) an exact distance between you and the center of a black hole, whether you know it or not. That distance is not, nor can it be warped. Distance is not a physical thing to be warped. Only physical objects can be warped, and distance is not a physical object.

    I asked you to define what you meant by moving through space. Please answer my question.
     
  10. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    The latter, as you cannot define a time without objects. We can only imagine it as independent as an abstraction of our definition with respect to objects.
     
  11. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,696
    So the definition of the passage of time is something that's affected by movement through space? Time is not like space except for the concept of distance. Time isn't something material, it's an abstraction of distance. Then again distance in space isn't really material either. Motion through space and time is the material part because it's an expression of energy. Time and distance make sense to us because we know that objects in motion have energy; energy is information.
    I think that should be objects in motion, especially periodic motion.
    But that doesn't mean time is intrinsic to objects or objects in motion, the alternative is that time is extrinsic to them.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2012
  12. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    (1) Yes, in \(\frac{1}{1-c^2/v^2}\) where v=c, you still have division by zero, which is undefined. In the Lorentz factor, this tells us that the photon doesn't have a defined reference frame, which is why it travels at c in all frames. You simply cannot get a sensible answer by transforming into a photon's "rest frame". This is illustrated in the associated length contraction to zero. You just cannot say anything about time, space, or motion from a hypothetical photon POV.

    (2) A perfect vacuum is impossible to find, due to quantum fluctuations. The free space velocity of light is exactly equal to the geometric mean of the free space permittivity and permeability completely by definition. This is not an experimental observation of space itself. Both permittivity and permeability are responses to electric and magnetic fields, respectively.

    And all of your supposed condescension about E and H fields in nonsense, as: \(Z_0 = \frac{E}{H} = \mu_0 c_0 = \sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{\varepsilon_0}} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0 c_0}\) "an E knob and an H knob"?! Maxwell's contribution to Ampère's law is what defines the relationship between the electric and magnetic fields that allow EM waves to sustain themselves while traversing space.

    Impedance does not arise independently of an EM field. It is a definition of a relation in an interaction. In very simple words you may be able to follow, you cannot actually find an impedance without the thing being affected and having an affect on. Period. Until you can demonstrate an experimental observation of such completely free of an EM field you have done nothing but arm waving about any intrinsic property of space.

    (3) I've already quoted you once as saying, "It has everything to do with actual motion devoid of time".

    (4) I never said you were trying to prove anything, only that the representations you assert as having "actual motion" are misleading. Seems a fairly simple thing to just admit to and be done with.
     
  13. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Still waiting, Grumpy. See the problem with parroting what someone else says is that you don't fully understand it, you just repeat it. You're good at being a repeater, but do you fully understand what you repeat?
     
  14. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    arfa brane

    No.

    No, it is not. There are four dimensions, distance is just one of them(near/far). Time exists and is one of the four dimensions, or, as some have put it, time is what keeps everything from happening simultaniously, space is what keeps everything from happening to you. Or, if you go to Westminster Abbey, time is what keeps you from meeting Thomas Becket even though you are standing at the very spot where he died. It has also been called the increase of the total entropy of the Universe.

    No, CHANGE in motion requires energy, motion through space requires no energy at all, it is simply the conservation of the energy it originally had.

    No, energy is not information, though the measurement of the energy is, to us. The Universe doesn't know or care about anything, information assumes an intelligence to inform.

    Motor Daddy

    I am telling you that space is warped by mass, that any straight line in space will bend when it passes by a mass as will any object or light travelling along that(to it)straight line to a greater or lesser degree dependent on it's speed. That includes any volume within that space. Gravity is not a force, mass bends spacetime and objects follow a straight line through that bent space. Draw a straight line on a piece of paper, then roll that paper into a tube(IE bend it around on itself), that straight line is now a circle around the bent piece of paper. This is a two dimensional demonstration of three dimensional space. Another is to stretch a big sheet of rubber into a flat plane, put a basketball in the center, then roll ping pong balls past the basketball, they will curve as they pass it, following the warp caused by the presence of the basketball. Mass bends space just like the basketball bends(warps)the sheet of rubber.

    Volume and space are two different things. Volume is a measurement in three dimensions, spacetime is the Universe, itself.

    It most certainly can be, as distance(near/far)is but one of the dimensions of spacetime. If an object is travelling near light speed it's length grows shorter and shorter the faster it goes, just a fact.

    I thought it was pretty obvious what movement is but if you insist, it is a change in position in space over time. Without time no movement or change can occur.

    Did you look at the cite I posted? It is a pretty good explanation of what spacetime is and will avoid a lot of the...less than cogent questions you are asking and mistaken statements you keep repeating. You will find that everything I have said in this thread is correct to the limits of our current knowledge(always subject to revision given more evidence or greater understanding). You seem to be trying to apply "common sense" principles to the subject, but in spacetime(as well as the quantum)common sense is usually wrong. You all seem to be as lost as a fish would be trying to explain the physics of the dry land, your experience does not serve you well in the Relativity world.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,696
    Can you explain this statement in that case?
    So you think time is material? What's it made out of?
    Motion through space of material objects means they have kinetic energy, so motion does "require" energy.
    Sorry, but that's wrong. Energy is information. Information can't be destroyed or created, but it can be 'stored'. Information can't be measured without using energy (which is "lost" to measurement). Information is physical.

    The modern view is that energy (information) is the only material "object", everything else is derived from it. This makes sense because energy "created" the universe and space and "non-material" time. Space and time are properties of energy rather than energy being a product of changes in space and time. This makes more sense when you look at how quantum mechanics treats the evolution of energy states.

    Do you understand black holes and the information paradox?
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2012
  16. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Or which defines a singularity. Division by zero was my original statement which you thrashed on, and bickered with me for several rounds, merely because you had no clue I was referring to the Lorentz factor.

    And that was my very point which you mangled and gnawed on, but which you now admit to. Congratulations. You win a slice of humble pie.

    No, that's your meatgrinder at work. I said it provides a way to model the vantage point I was modeling. (You have yet to explain what sensible means in this entire thread, outside of what I have already given for an answer)

    Meaning spacetime collapses.

    You just did.

    Translation: "OMG, I'll never get all the labels on the cans in the pantry pointing in exactly the right direction"

    Irrelevant to the definition of intrinsic impedance, grossly irrelevant to my connection between light speed and intrinsic impedance, and excruciatingly irrelevant to my model that answers the OP.

    There you go with the strawman. Not only false, also irrelevant, completely eluding the premise The free space velocity of light is exactly equal to the geometric mean of the free space permittivity and permeability in answer to the other subject that was flashing by while you were then strawmanning me to death, the question being: is time intrinsic?, which I answered, but which you which you completely ignore on its merits, bringing only strawmen and your paint ball gun to the table.

    No, not at all. They are constant properties, and their units, in the geometic mean, are meters per second, and their magnitude (reciprocal) is approx 3E8. The units of the geometric mean are time and space, and the parameters themselves (permittivity and permeability) are intrinsic to space... so.... I answered the question while you left it there, blazing in glory, to go off in the woods with your trolling.

    You mean you passed your freshman exams?

    Oh so you know how to equivocate too. All you needed to do was to acknowledge, before I checked you, that you understood I was referring to \(\sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{\varepsilon_0}}\)
    since that was what I actually said from the beginning, before you shredded my statement, and then discounted impedance as "merely" arising from the field impingement.

    Pretty ridiculous, huh? That models your notion of creating impedance out of two forcing functions.

    Maxwell and Ampère must have derived personal satisfaction from their work, realizing that their equations launched so many waves...past, then, future... quite a remarkable feat.

    Or, more likely, the source that emits the wave is dumping energy into one of two possible types of radiators - one that exploits the E field as the forcing function, or else one that exploits the H field. Either of these, impressed upon the medium, creates a near field phenomenon before the wave can even launch. All of the energy that will effectively radiate requires a spatial zone, to mediate perturbative coupling and reflection from the radiator, aperture effects, and the indefinite determination of Z until those are mediated. At some range farther off, the E and H fields settle into a more behaved mode in obedience to the observed law. All of this time Z[SUB]0[/SUB] was always Z[SUB]0[/SUB], it never changed, because it sits exactly at around 377Ω. It doesn't rise and fall when you turn the radiator on and off. It's constant. It's intrinsic to space.

    OK I get it. You're just trolling me with strawman word games. So the 1Ω resistor doesn't actually have any resistance until a current lights up its carbon lattice. The 1H coil doesn't have any inductance and the 1F capacitor doesn't have capacitance until the excitation current or voltage are presented in them either.

    Fail. You are speaking of the induced reactance due to impedance, whereas, I very plainly introduced the property of impedance itself, a property that is clearly intrinsic. This is exactly what I meant about thrashing and meatgrinding. You're putting your own spin on whatever I say, like I'm your personal crash dummy. Get off the gas, dude. :bugeye:

    Translation: I will now proceed to demonstrate my prowess at mangling verbiage, and mounting it as a strawman

    Same strawman. If that were true, no electronic device could ever be manufactured. Every standard in the Bureau of Weights and Measures would be utterly useless. And places like Radio Shack would have to take all those baggies of parts off the hangars, because impedance can't be manufactured. And that goes for semiconductors, too. -transconductance, depletion and pinch off, Hall effect, photovoltaic effect, the whole nine yards, it all just evaporates, for lack of Syne and his eternal voltmeter forever energizing every medium, while dodging every quantum effect that keeps him running back and forth to the pantry to incessantly line the cans up again and again. No lights either, trash them all, nothing works, the universe doesn't really exist, it's all a simulation. Pull the plug, and all you have left is Syne and his mountain of strawmen, all shot up with darts and paint balls.

    No, question mark. What's up with you, dude ? :shrug:

    Hah! You sucked me down into this absurd bullshit after all, didn't you!

    Ok.. let's chase that tail around the dog: If that were true, the knowledge that Z[SUB]0[/SUB] = 377Ω would have to vanish from my memory the minute I switch my instrument off. I would be locked in a loop - measure, forget, measure, forget.... an endless absurdity, kind of like this discussion, which still has nothing to do with my original statements, utterly usurped by your strawman antics.

    No. You took that statement and twisted it into a strawman, and mounted your own absurdity on the wall, and started throwing darts at it.

    Go back to the graphic of Brian Greene standing outside the continuum. Actual motion is going on inside the continuum (our continuum, not the model). Outside is devoid of time (and space). My posts present a model no different, which has everything to do with actual motion (inside the continuum) devoid of time (outside the continuum), nothing more, nothing less.

    Your strawman hash purporting to be stated by me, is not only misleading, it's overt fraud. Putting up trash, and representing it as mine, and demanding that I give proof, are all part of your antics.

    Well, I did get a partial confession out of you, but your full penance won't be complete until to you own up to full bore trolling. I agree it seems simple enough. Maybe simplicity and honesty are just two of your weak points. Or maybe, for you, trolling is just more titillating. Whatever floats your meatgrinder. :shrug:
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2012
  17. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    arfa brane

    Time is affected by motion through space, but I did not say that was the definition of the passage of time. Time passes whether there is motion or not.

    I didn't say time is a material thing, I said it was not an abstraction of distance(whatever that means). Time is a dimension just like up/down, left/right, near/far are dimensions. We live in a four dimensional spacetime, three of space, one of time(actually only a half dimension of time as we can travel in both directions in the space dimensions, but only in one direction of time. But to avoid getting too technical I will just say it is a dimension).

    Motion through space does give mass energy, but if the mass is already moving it requires no energy to continue moving forever. It is a CHANGE in motion that requires energy. A subtle difference but precision is required if we want to be accurate. Newton put it "Bodies in motion tend to continue in motion, bodies at rest tend to remain at rest."

    That is a complete misuse of the word "information", similar to the misuse those opposed to evolution try to use it. Information requires intellect to be informed.

    Yes, information about an object is not lost but is spread out over the event horizon. But that information is not the same thing as energy, you obviously do not understand it. A little education is a dangerous thing.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,696
    @ Grumpy: I'll address your points in reverse:
    What happens to the information inside the event horizon?

    Your claim that information is not the same thing as energy means you are disagreeing with several well-known scientists. One of whom is Rolf Landauer. But you can include Claude Shannon, Gregory Chaitin, Seth Lloyd, Leonard Susskind, Leo Szilard and probably James Clerk Maxwell. You obviously haven't studied information theory, am I right? Can you think of a way to represent information that doesn't use anything physical, perhaps?
    It's the same "misuse" that the above list of scientists applies, however.
    Quite. If a mass is moving through space it has enough energy to keep moving through space, right?
    Have you heard of the Minkowski metric?
    Can you prove that time "passes" when there is no motion?
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2012
  19. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    arfa brane

    You've already shown how complete your non-understanding of Einstein is, I think you are probably just as competent when it comes to your complete lack of understanding the work of all the names you listed. Everything I have said in this thread is due to a thourough and decades long study of the subject of Relativity and you have disagreed with almost all of it. I even posted a site where you or anyone else could check if what I said is accurate. While I make no claim to infallibility, nor do I even attempt the hard core math, I taught the subject at a high school level for a few decades and I read Scientific American for pleasure. I stand by what I have said.

    Neither you, I or any other person on Earth could possibly know. And you wouldn't have asked the question if you knew the first thing about what an event horizon is. It's called that because no light, matter, , event, information, radiation, or any other thing or conceivable property can be known about what is inside. Except for it's spin(seen by the amount of frame dragging), it's charge and it's mass(gravity)the Black Hole and everything in it have left this Universe, never to return or be seen or heard from again. You might as well ask what was there before the Big Bang.

    It takes no energy to move through space. It takes energy to change that movement, but no energy is being expended in a moving object in space, no rocket fuel is being expended to keep the International Space Station in orbit UNLESS they use some to CHANGE it's orbit.

    There is no place in this Universe where no movement is occuring or where something cannot be observed moving so it's kind of moot.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,696
    I have a degree in CS and I'm about to complete a graduate qualification. You're the one who has an almost complete non-understanding of what information is.

    I would rather believe what any of those people I listed has to say about the subject than some tinpot posting a bunch of misconceived ideas on an internet forum. If you don't believe that there are a lot of other scientists (with Ph.Ds) who understand the connection between information and thermodynamics, and what "information is physical" means, who cares?
    That is a lot of misguided rubbish. You don't understand what a black hole is at all. You say you read Scientific American, have you read the article about black hole information by Lloyd and Ng? Do you understand why they claim black holes are like computers?
    When did I say energy is being expended by an object moving through space? I said an object in motion has energy, kinetic energy. You really know a lot about misunderstanding things, by the look of it. Maybe you're some kind of idiot?
    So this:
    Is kind of meaningless?

    I think you're full of shit, by the way. This is the last response I intend to make to any of your misguided crap. Bye.
     
  21. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    :spank

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    oor baby
     
  22. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106

    The mass of matter is the cause of time dilation as only in the reference frame of massive objects in relative motion does time dilation occur.
     
  23. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    @Aqueous Id

    No singularity is well-defined, as quantities can increase without bounds within a finite non-zero extent. You shouldn't pretend that you know something definite just because you can bandy words like singularity. If you had made the point that "the photon ... travels at c in all frames" then you shouldn't have had any problem with me pointing out that division by zero is undefined, especially for a photon's hypothetical "rest frame". There is no "modeling" anything after something which is undefined, but I guess that allows for "creative freedom", right?

    "Spacetime collapses"?! You should really go read up on spacetime singularities.

    And yes, I realize that people feel they need to dismiss sound reasoning when they cannot support their own beliefs. That fact that they provide no reasons for the dismissal shows it for what it is.

    By all means, show me the experimental observation of space itself for permittivity and permeability being intrinsic. You know, since you said there not being any was a lie. Or are you constitutionally incapable of supporting any of your own assertions? The constants of permittivity and permeability are such by definition not observation.

    Space is not a medium. Ether doesn't exist. So all of your talk about resistors is rubbish. And all of you supposed condescension and troll accusations only seem all the more projection.

    Just like I said from the beginning, the static representation is not the motion. Seem you'd just agree with this rather than launching all this needless hyperbole.
     

Share This Page