The Relativity of Time
- Thread starter Nightshift
- Start date
Absolutely correct, entropy is what defines time.
I have also defined, cosmological change in my work. I've argued that change is so fundamental, that even cosmological change, such as constant changes in supergalaxies can define a global ''time'' which is really a change in their relative positions to each other. This includes relative positions associated to the Machian definition of inertia on systems, by including the Newtonian assumption that all masses in the universe interact with each other. I'd be more inclined only local masses have real interactions, any interaction outside a sphere of mass is probably zero.
Or time is what defines entropy.....
The thing is I define interactions , by objects , by the movements of the objects themselves and why
Take the atomic clock
I define the atomic by what happens in the atom its self , not by time , time is later , as I describe why the atom does what it does , which is because of the nature of the atom its self
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock
I don't know how you work that out. When did entropy become time?
The first clock we know of came from a ship wreck which involved as my not infallible memory recalls, a Greek ship about 2000+ years ago carrying exotic cargo. The clock measured the moon and the sun and the earth.
What does the clock tell you about time?
Time is the change in motion of galactic bodies... we take this further to say time is change of anything by definition.
And still does not get away from the fact that according to the BB/Inflationary theory, space and time evolved from 10-43 seconds...Both basic foundation stuff of which the Universe exists.
It's rather an interesting point, that while I agree this can be still debatable with no certainty on either side, I have yet to see any from the other end of the spectrum agree.
If we check out all our anti mainstream threads, well most anyway, you will likewise notice how they title their threads with utmost certainty...as if trying to stifle any debate from the word go.
The same method is used by our conspiracy nutters and pseudoscientific ratbags.
Remember the poster called chinglu, and his SR/GR are 100% wrong and no correspondence will be entered into threads?
I see this as an attempt by these people to gain some form of notoriety, even if it is only on a forum.
At least that is my observation.
But WHY the change in the first place , is the question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock
The clock is NOT based on time but based on the nature of the atom its self
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock
The clock is NOT based on time but based on the nature of the atom its self
Hi river, all due respect, but don't use the atomic clock as a definition of time. An atomic clock in theory can be static through a simple series of observations called - if you had some supercomputer that watched all the atoms in the universe, the universe would never change. A watched pot never boils. I add to this... A watched pot isn't the definition of time. Nor then can be one that isn't.
Time is that which evolved from 10-43 seconds after the BB and is seen as one with space.
I didn't use the atomic clock as a definition of time , but the essence of time example
A clock does no more then measure the passage of time. Time will always pass, in any model of the Universe, clocks or no clocks, including a static universe, or Oscillating one.
No gravity is because of space...and time.
So, paddoboy, Copy/Paste an article (from one of your reputable sources, of course!
) that Clearly States that a Universe devoid of any Mass, containing only "space...and time" would exhibit any "gravity"!Deja Vu? Copy/Paste - Parrot - Repeat Ad Nauseam!!!
So, paddoboy, let's say it is about 3 or 4 Billion years ago (according to the BB theory), before any cognizant or intelligent life "existed" on Planet Earth to be able to "conceptualize anything".
paddoboy, 3 or 4 Billion years ago,No "concepts" at all "existed".
paddoboy, There "existed" no "concept" of "space" - There "existed" no "concept" of "time" - There "existed" no "concept" of "gravity" - There "existed" no "concept" of "energy" - There "existed" no "concept" of "matter".
3 or 4 Billion years ago, it wasn't just any single one of those "concepts" that didn't "exist" paddoboy, - None of those, or any "concepts" of any kind at all "existed"!
So, paddoboy, without any of those "concepts" in "existence" 3 or 4 Billion years ago, was there a physical "reality" in existence?
If your answer is "yes" - then you must therefore understand that there is a fundamental difference between "concepts" and "reality" - and that they are NOT ONE AND THE SAME!
If your answer is "no" - then, well... : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concept ; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reality
Of course
But my point is that time has physical essence to it
Not in and of time its self , but because of physical things
Hence the atomic clock exp.
The atom is used because of its consistancy within its self
sigh... I am sorry paddo. We do not agree on the definition of time. Let's leave it at that now.
Never mind actually being wrong about what relativity says about time... time cannot ''pass'' regardless of any facts about your situation. Consider there being no matter fields, how do you define time? Penrose, correctly points out you can't.
So, paddoboy, Copy/Paste an article (from one of your reputable sources, of course!
All gravity is, is a geometrical application of space/time, in the presence of mass.
Again what I said is not how you insidiously interprete it...again
"No gravity is because of space...and time" Think about it, read it carefully...don't let your agenda get in the way.
Again, this post in a great example of your copy/paste skills, parroting, and inane questions as already illustrated.
To answer that load of hogwash, is to again repeat myself to your agenda laden deaf ears.
Just because humanity/clocks were not around to measure time, does not mean it does not exist.
We were not evolved at the BB to measure the 13.8 years to now.....but guess what, the "now" is here!
I mean our now, which obviously is not a universal now. Now do you get it? [probably not]
One must ask, after reading the above nonsense, if you are real?
I mean are you suggesting that just because humans were not around to wonder and form concepts, that space didnt exist? That time didn't exist? That gravity didn't exist?'That Earth didn't exist? That matter didn't exist? That energy din't exist?
So you Imagine only when we could form a concept about these things, that they suddenly and miraculously started to exist?
You are not only unable to see the forest, you have also missed the damn trees.
Do you realize the picture you are painting of yourself on this forum?
I'm really beginning to be worried......sheesh!