View Full Version : What is time?
Orcinus Orca
Nov9-04, 03:44 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\nWhat is time?\n\nI do not understand the concept of time in physics. It seems to me\nthat someone (Einstein?) said that if one could go faster than light,\none could go back in time. Now here is my doubt:\n\nImagine a universe with only a star and an astronaut. Spontaneous\nnuclear reactions are going on in the star and the rate of these\nreactions is determined by three factors: the amount of fuel\navailable, the size of the star, and its temperature. Say that the\nrate is 100 liters of hydrogen being consumed per hour.\n\nIf the astronaut travels 10 times faster than the speed of light for\none hour, how much hydrogen will have been consumed in the star?\n\nIn my reasoning, the star has a pace of its own (nothing in its\nenvironment changed); therefore the same 100 liters would be consumed\nno matter how fast the astronaut is traveling.\n\nThe body of the astronaut also has a pace of its own determined by his\ntemperature and metabolic rate. The reactions in his body will\ncontinue in the same pace and in the same direction.\n\nIf the speed at which the astronaut traveled forced time to run\nbackwards, the reactions in the star would have been reversed. Instead\nof consuming hydrogen, it would have to consume helium. How much\nenergy would be necessary to do that? And how much energy would be\nneeded to reverse the astronaut\'s entire metabolism? Where would this\nenergy come from? I understand that *everything in the universe has a\npace of its own* (or if you will, its own clock) and its ticking is\n*only* decreased or increased by the energy available to it.\n\nThe only way I find to accept the concept of time in the context of\nphysics is by accepting the existence of an infinite number of\ndimensions that are frozen "in time," that is, no reaction whatsoever\ntakes place, nothing happens. This infinite number goes to the past\nand to the future and at every fraction of time that we live, we are\nactually going to a different dimension. Traveling faster than light\nwould allow us to go to dimensions that lie in our past.\n\nTo me, the laws of thermodynamics and whatever tied "time" to the\nspeed of light (general relativity?) cannot be both correct. Does\n"universal time" really exist? What did I miss? Please enlighten me or\nmy brain will soon fuse. :)\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>What is time?
I do not understand the concept of time in physics. It seems to me
that someone (Einstein?) said that if one could go faster than light,
one could go back in time. Now here is my doubt:
Imagine a universe with only a star and an astronaut. Spontaneous
nuclear reactions are going on in the star and the rate of these
reactions is determined by three factors: the amount of fuel
available, the size of the star, and its temperature. Say that the
rate is 100 liters of hydrogen being consumed per hour.
If the astronaut travels 10 times faster than the speed of light for
one hour, how much hydrogen will have been consumed in the star?
In my reasoning, the star has a pace of its own (nothing in its
environment changed); therefore the same 100 liters would be consumed
no matter how fast the astronaut is traveling.
The body of the astronaut also has a pace of its own determined by his
temperature and metabolic rate. The reactions in his body will
continue in the same pace and in the same direction.
If the speed at which the astronaut traveled forced time to run
backwards, the reactions in the star would have been reversed. Instead
of consuming hydrogen, it would have to consume helium. How much
energy would be necessary to do that? And how much energy would be
needed to reverse the astronaut's entire metabolism? Where would this
energy come from? I understand that *everything in the universe has a
pace of its own* (or if you will, its own clock) and its ticking is
*only* decreased or increased by the energy available to it.
The only way I find to accept the concept of time in the context of
physics is by accepting the existence of an infinite number of
dimensions that are frozen "in time," that is, no reaction whatsoever
takes place, nothing happens. This infinite number goes to the past
and to the future and at every fraction of time that we live, we are
actually going to a different dimension. Traveling faster than light
would allow us to go to dimensions that lie in our past.
To me, the laws of thermodynamics and whatever tied "time" to the
speed of light (general relativity?) cannot be both correct. Does
"universal time" really exist? What did I miss? Please enlighten me or
my brain will soon fuse. :)
Uncle Al
Nov9-04, 02:54 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Orcinus Orca wrote:\n>\n> What is time?\n[snip]\n\nTime is what a clock reads - neither more nor less. Inertial frames\nwith different velocities will show different mixes of space and\ntime. It\'s called Special Relativity. Newton was wrong.\n\nhttp://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf\n<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>\n<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>\nhttp://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/Paper6.pdf\nhttp://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/LPHrel.html\nLongitudinal and transverse mass\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Orcinus Orca wrote:
>
> What is time?
[snip]
Time is what a clock reads - neither more nor less. Inertial frames
with different velocities will show different mixes of space and
time. It's called Special Relativity. Newton was wrong.
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/Paper6.pdf
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/LPHrel.html
Longitudinal and transverse mass
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Doug Sweetser
Nov14-04, 07:04 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Orcinus Orca wrote:\n\n>> No massive body can travel the speed of light. It is that simple.\n\n> Why do some physicists waste so much time discussing this possibility?\n\nShort answer: for fun.\n\nIf you asked a person with a Ph. D. in physics to bet a hundred dollars\nof their own money on whether a massive body can travel at or above the\nspeed of light, since this is about cash, they would all bet the same\nway: no. Take the same person, pay for their beer, and they will have\nfun chatting about time travel.\n\nThere are two areas where people have done serious technical\ninvestigations: tachyons and wormholes. Although there have been\nstudies, I don\'t think the conservative among us think either of these\nobjects are real parts of the Universe. Physics is so constraining\nthat there will be people who think there is a chance for both notions,\nbut they should acknowledge their reservations, like zero physical\ndata.\n\nI only take about spacetime travel. I go forward in time reliably, and\nskitter around Boston at very low speeds. If I could travel into\nspacetimes past, then I could be in two places at once. Sounds like\nnonsense to me.\n\ndoug\nquaternions.com\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Orcinus Orca wrote:
>> No massive body can travel the speed of light. It is that simple.
> Why do some physicists waste so much time discussing this possibility?
Short answer: for fun.
If you asked a person with a Ph. D. in physics to bet a hundred dollars
of their own money on whether a massive body can travel at or above the
speed of light, since this is about cash, they would all bet the same
way: no. Take the same person, pay for their beer, and they will have
fun chatting about time travel.
There are two areas where people have done serious technical
investigations: tachyons and wormholes. Although there have been
studies, I don't think the conservative among us think either of these
objects are real parts of the Universe. Physics is so constraining
that there will be people who think there is a chance for both notions,
but they should acknowledge their reservations, like zero physical
data.
I only take about spacetime travel. I go forward in time reliably, and
skitter around Boston at very low speeds. If I could travel into
spacetimes past, then I could be in two places at once. Sounds like
nonsense to me.
doug
quaternions.com
Eugene Shubert
Nov14-04, 11:59 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n"Orcinus Orca" <orcinus_orca@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:87e684ba.0411111012.2b0fc245@posting.google.c om...\n> Doug Sweetser <sweetser@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message\n>\n>> No massive body can travel the speed of light. It is that simple.\n>\n> I see a lot of physicists talking about traveling in time (in the\n> sense of going to the past). Even Hawking in one of his books says\n> that traveling in time is not likely, but not that it\'s not possible.\n> This bothers me tremendously because I keep thinking to myself: "don\'t\n> physicists know that everything in the universe has its own pace?" Now\n> I can also ask myself, "don\'t physicists know that no massive body can\n> travel the speed of light much less above it?" ;) Why do some\n> physicists waste so much time discussing this possibility?\n\nI recall reading some parts of a well-known book on modern physics\nthat was obviously meant for popular consumption. The author/\npopularizer wrote that the publisher advised him not to have any\nequations in the book. For each added equation, interest in the book,\nand therefore its profitability, would be cut by 50%. It\'s clear that\ntime travel ideas fascinate popular audiences and that this kind of\npopularization of physics is money driven.\n\nThere is no rational physics theory of time travel.\n\nEugene Shubert\nhttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Orcinus Orca" <orcinus_orca@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:87e684ba.0411111012.2b0fc245@posting.google.c om...
> Doug Sweetser <sweetser@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
>
>> No massive body can travel the speed of light. It is that simple.
>
> I see a lot of physicists talking about traveling in time (in the
> sense of going to the past). Even Hawking in one of his books says
> that traveling in time is not likely, but not that it's not possible.
> This bothers me tremendously because I keep thinking to myself: "don't
> physicists know that everything in the universe has its own pace?" Now
> I can also ask myself, "don't physicists know that no massive body can
> travel the speed of light much less above it?" ;) Why do some
> physicists waste so much time discussing this possibility?
I recall reading some parts of a well-known book on modern physics
that was obviously meant for popular consumption. The author/
popularizer wrote that the publisher advised him not to have any
equations in the book. For each added equation, interest in the book,
and therefore its profitability, would be cut by 50%. It's clear that
time travel ideas fascinate popular audiences and that this kind of
popularization of physics is money driven.
There is no rational physics theory of time travel.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Y.Porat
Nov16-04, 02:18 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>GalileoProject003@everythingimportant.org (Eugene Shubert) wrote in message news:<a1987c9e.0411130606.3407c531@posting.google. com>...\n> "Orcinus Orca" <orcinus_orca@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:87e684ba.0411111012.2b0fc245@posting.google.c om...\n> > Doug Sweetser <sweetser@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message\n> >\n> >> No massive body can travel the speed of light. It is that simple.\n> >\n> > I see a lot of physicists talking about traveling in time (in the\n> > sense of going to the past). Even Hawking in one of his books says\n> > that traveling in time is not likely, but not that it\'s not possible.\n> > This bothers me tremendously because I keep thinking to myself: "don\'t\n> > physicists know that everything in the universe has its own pace?" Now\n> > I can also ask myself, "don\'t physicists know that no massive body can\n> > travel the speed of light much less above it?" ;) Why do some\n> > physicists waste so much time discussing this possibility?\n--------------------------\nrealy no reason to do it because .....\n\ntime\' in nothing but motion (or translation) *comparison\nto some agreed motion reference*\n\nnow if you consider that the amount of motion evolved\neven in the simpest physical event in our universe is so big\nand complicated than.....\nthere is no chance that you can *reverse it \'intact\'\nie exactly as it was *\n\nso all the talk about \'travling in time\'\nis just a waste of time and energy\n--------------------\nall the best\nY.Porat\n------------------------\n>\n>\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>GalileoProject003@everythingimportant.org (Eugene Shubert) wrote in message news:<a1987c9e.0411130606.3407c531@posting.google.com>...
> "Orcinus Orca" <orcinus_orca@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:87e684ba.0411111012.2b0fc245@posting.google.c om...
> > Doug Sweetser <sweetser@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
> >
> >> No massive body can travel the speed of light. It is that simple.
> >
> > I see a lot of physicists talking about traveling in time (in the
> > sense of going to the past). Even Hawking in one of his books says
> > that traveling in time is not likely, but not that it's not possible.
> > This bothers me tremendously because I keep thinking to myself: "don't
> > physicists know that everything in the universe has its own pace?" Now
> > I can also ask myself, "don't physicists know that no massive body can
> > travel the speed of light much less above it?" ;) Why do some
> > physicists waste so much time discussing this possibility?
--------------------------
realy no reason to do it because .....
time' in nothing but motion (or translation) *comparison
to some agreed motion reference*
now if you consider that the amount of motion evolved
even in the simpest physical event in our universe is so big
and complicated than.....
there is no chance that you can *reverse it 'intact'
ie exactly as it was *
so all the talk about 'travling in time'
is just a waste of time and energy
--------------------
all the best
Y.Porat
------------------------
>
>
Daniel Elander
Nov17-04, 10:46 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>> From what I have read so far, neither Shubert nor Einstein said\n> anything about actually traveling in time. I understand that if you\n> are at a certain distance from an object, you will see what is\n> happening to that object with a certain delay ? the delay being the\n> time it took for light to get to you. I also understand that you are\n> not actually visiting the past, but only seeing what happened in the\n> past. So again, why do some physicists even ponder the possibility of\n> traveling in time if going faster than light were possible? I hope I\'m\n> not being stubborn or too dumb. ;)\n\nThis doesn\'t have anything to do with the kind of time travel some\nphysicists think about.\nAs you probably know, in general relativity, space and time are\ncurved. How it is curved is determined by the Einstein field\nequations. In principle, one may consider space-times which are curved\nin such a way that there are wormholes, or shortcuts through space.\nThat is one weird possibility. Then it also turns out that the\nequations actually permit time travel. This has nothing to do with\ntravelling faster than light - it comes down to that space-time can be\ncurved.\nSince it is a theoretical possibility, it is interesting to study it,\nand it also leads to some strange philosophical dilemmas, like the one\nabout going back in time and kill your mother. That one leads to a\ncontradiction, but what are we to make of, say, a billiard ball\nfalling into a time machine, and emerging an instant earlier only to\nhit its past incarnation, causing it to fall into the time machine,\nand hit itself, causing it to fall into the time machine, ad\ninfinitum? Something strange is going on, and perhaps we should expect\nour theory governing these things to not permit time travel, but it\nseems to do. Is something wrong with the theory, or is there some\nsubtle aspect of it that forbids time travel that we\'re unaware of? I\nthink it\'s to answer such questions that physicists are interested in\nit.\n\nDaniel\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>> From what I have read so far, neither Shubert nor Einstein said
> anything about actually traveling in time. I understand that if you
> are at a certain distance from an object, you will see what is
> happening to that object with a certain delay ? the delay being the
> time it took for light to get to you. I also understand that you are
> not actually visiting the past, but only seeing what happened in the
> past. So again, why do some physicists even ponder the possibility of
> traveling in time if going faster than light were possible? I hope I'm
> not being stubborn or too dumb. ;)
This doesn't have anything to do with the kind of time travel some
physicists think about.
As you probably know, in general relativity, space and time are
curved. How it is curved is determined by the Einstein field
equations. In principle, one may consider space-times which are curved
in such a way that there are wormholes, or shortcuts through space.
That is one weird possibility. Then it also turns out that the
equations actually permit time travel. This has nothing to do with
travelling faster than light - it comes down to that space-time can be
curved.
Since it is a theoretical possibility, it is interesting to study it,
and it also leads to some strange philosophical dilemmas, like the one
about going back in time and kill your mother. That one leads to a
contradiction, but what are we to make of, say, a billiard ball
falling into a time machine, and emerging an instant earlier only to
hit its past incarnation, causing it to fall into the time machine,
and hit itself, causing it to fall into the time machine, ad
infinitum? Something strange is going on, and perhaps we should expect
our theory governing these things to not permit time travel, but it
seems to do. Is something wrong with the theory, or is there some
subtle aspect of it that forbids time travel that we're unaware of? I
think it's to answer such questions that physicists are interested in
it.
Daniel
Marcel LeBel
Nov19-04, 01:28 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Orcinus Orca wrote:\n> What is time?\n>\n> I do not understand the concept of time in physics. It seems to me\n> that someone (Einstein?) said that if one could go faster than light,\n> one could go back in time. Now here is my doubt:\n>\n> Imagine a universe with only a star and an astronaut. Spontaneous\n> nuclear reactions are going on in the star and the rate of these\n> reactions is determined by three factors: the amount of fuel\n> available, the size of the star, and its temperature. Say that the\n> rate is 100 liters of hydrogen being consumed per hour.\n>\n> If the astronaut travels 10 times faster than the speed of light for\n> one hour, how much hydrogen will have been consumed in the star?\n>\n> In my reasoning, the star has a pace of its own (nothing in its\n> environment changed); therefore the same 100 liters would be consumed\n> no matter how fast the astronaut is traveling.\n>\n> The body of the astronaut also has a pace of its own determined by his\n> temperature and metabolic rate. The reactions in his body will\n> continue in the same pace and in the same direction.\n>\n> If the speed at which the astronaut traveled forced time to run\n> backwards, the reactions in the star would have been reversed. Instead\n> of consuming hydrogen, it would have to consume helium. How much\n> energy would be necessary to do that? And how much energy would be\n> needed to reverse the astronaut\'s entire metabolism? Where would this\n> energy come from? I understand that *everything in the universe has a\n> pace of its own* (or if you will, its own clock) and its ticking is\n> *only* decreased or increased by the energy available to it.\n>\n> The only way I find to accept the concept of time in the context of\n> physics is by accepting the existence of an infinite number of\n> dimensions that are frozen "in time," that is, no reaction whatsoever\n> takes place, nothing happens. This infinite number goes to the past\n> and to the future and at every fraction of time that we live, we are\n> actually going to a different dimension. Traveling faster than light\n> would allow us to go to dimensions that lie in our past.\n>\n> To me, the laws of thermodynamics and whatever tied "time" to the\n> speed of light (general relativity?) cannot be both correct. Does\n> "universal time" really exist? What did I miss? Please enlighten me or\n> my brain will soon fuse. :)\n\nThe question about the nature of time is not a scientific question. The\nquestion of understanding time or of what it is, cannot be answered\nusing the concepts/subject matter and method of science. So don\'t fuse\nyour brain on that one.\n\nYou may address this question using logic, ontology and proper\nformulation of the question. "Time" has so many meanings and usages that\njust asking "what is time" has no validity and therefore no possible\nanswer. If you ask what is time duration or the passage of time, you are\nalready making progress. If you ask what is the passage of time when not\nreferenced to any observer i.e. when we are not measuring it, then you\nare moving towards "ontology", or, the study of what things are by\nthemselves, outside the benefit of our perception and interpretation.\nSince these ontological concepts are, by definition, not the one\nacquired by perception, measurement or any other physical interaction\n..... these concepts are metaphysical. They were acquired by logic FROM\nthe logical analysis OF physical experience.\n\nSo, the question that you have to answer now is this. What do YOU want?\nDo you want to be explained how time (duration) is physically\nexperienced and measured and treated in science? Or, do you want to\nunderstand the ontology of the passage of time?\n\nA physical time quantity is defined by the experience of its\nmeasurement. Since, by definition, it cannot exist without us around, I\nsubmit to you that it is not fundamental. Of course it represents an\nappreciation of something that really exists out there; but this\n"appreciation" .. is just that; an appreciation.\n\nMarcel,\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Orcinus Orca wrote:
> What is time?
>
> I do not understand the concept of time in physics. It seems to me
> that someone (Einstein?) said that if one could go faster than light,
> one could go back in time. Now here is my doubt:
>
> Imagine a universe with only a star and an astronaut. Spontaneous
> nuclear reactions are going on in the star and the rate of these
> reactions is determined by three factors: the amount of fuel
> available, the size of the star, and its temperature. Say that the
> rate is 100 liters of hydrogen being consumed per hour.
>
> If the astronaut travels 10 times faster than the speed of light for
> one hour, how much hydrogen will have been consumed in the star?
>
> In my reasoning, the star has a pace of its own (nothing in its
> environment changed); therefore the same 100 liters would be consumed
> no matter how fast the astronaut is traveling.
>
> The body of the astronaut also has a pace of its own determined by his
> temperature and metabolic rate. The reactions in his body will
> continue in the same pace and in the same direction.
>
> If the speed at which the astronaut traveled forced time to run
> backwards, the reactions in the star would have been reversed. Instead
> of consuming hydrogen, it would have to consume helium. How much
> energy would be necessary to do that? And how much energy would be
> needed to reverse the astronaut's entire metabolism? Where would this
> energy come from? I understand that *everything in the universe has a
> pace of its own* (or if you will, its own clock) and its ticking is
> *only* decreased or increased by the energy available to it.
>
> The only way I find to accept the concept of time in the context of
> physics is by accepting the existence of an infinite number of
> dimensions that are frozen "in time," that is, no reaction whatsoever
> takes place, nothing happens. This infinite number goes to the past
> and to the future and at every fraction of time that we live, we are
> actually going to a different dimension. Traveling faster than light
> would allow us to go to dimensions that lie in our past.
>
> To me, the laws of thermodynamics and whatever tied "time" to the
> speed of light (general relativity?) cannot be both correct. Does
> "universal time" really exist? What did I miss? Please enlighten me or
> my brain will soon fuse. :)
The question about the nature of time is not a scientific question. The
question of understanding time or of what it is, cannot be answered
using the concepts/subject matter and method of science. So don't fuse
your brain on that one.
You may address this question using logic, ontology and proper
formulation of the question. "Time" has so many meanings and usages that
just asking "what is time" has no validity and therefore no possible
answer. If you ask what is time duration or the passage of time, you are
already making progress. If you ask what is the passage of time when not
referenced to any observer i.e. when we are not measuring it, then you
are moving towards "ontology", or, the study of what things are by
themselves, outside the benefit of our perception and interpretation.
Since these ontological concepts are, by definition, not the one
acquired by perception, measurement or any other physical interaction
..... these concepts are metaphysical. They were acquired by logic FROM
the logical analysis OF physical experience.
So, the question that you have to answer now is this. What do YOU want?
Do you want to be explained how time (duration) is physically
experienced and measured and treated in science? Or, do you want to
understand the ontology of the passage of time?
A physical time quantity is defined by the experience of its
measurement. Since, by definition, it cannot exist without us around, I
submit to you that it is not fundamental. Of course it represents an
appreciation of something that really exists out there; but this
"appreciation" .. is just that; an appreciation.
Marcel,
Orcinus Orca
Nov21-04, 02:54 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Marcel LeBel <fakemail@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:\n> So, the question that you have to answer now is this. What do YOU want?\n> Do you want to be explained how time (duration) is physically\n> experienced and measured and treated in science? Or, do you want to\n> understand the ontology of the passage of time?\n>\n> Marcel,\n\nThanks Marcel. I was under the impression that physicists thought it\nwould be possible to travel back in time and I simply couldnīt see\nhow. I thought I had missed something about "time" itself, thatīs why\nI asked.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Marcel LeBel <fakemail@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> So, the question that you have to answer now is this. What do YOU want?
> Do you want to be explained how time (duration) is physically
> experienced and measured and treated in science? Or, do you want to
> understand the ontology of the passage of time?
>
> Marcel,
Thanks Marcel. I was under the impression that physicists thought it
would be possible to travel back in time and I simply couldnīt see
how. I thought I had missed something about "time" itself, thatīs why
I asked.
Mike Helland
Nov22-04, 05:42 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<4190E8FA.112971A5@hate.spam.net>...\n> Orcinus Orca wrote:\n> >\n> > What is time?\n> [snip]\n>\n> Time is what a clock reads - neither more nor less.\n\nThis definition can be stated far more generally, especially, I think,\nto the benefit of the original poster.\n\nThis is what Peter Lynds said to me in an email this year:\n\n"There isn\'t a flow of time and interval of time doesn\'t \'exist\' as\nsuch. Rather, [what exists is] the physical continuity that enables\nevents to take place continuously and successively, including the\nprogression of the hand of a clock or its mechanism."\n\nIt is pretty clear from this, if not from Uncle Al\'s definition, that\ntime doesn\'t define how things change, and the opposite is true: how\nthings change defines time.\n\nThis thought experiment should help you understand:\n\n"Imagine that your existence is actually a computer simulation; your\nbody, your mind, and your world are defined by this computer program.\nThen the computer stops. That means your eyes, your brain, and the\nlight and matter around you all stop. Then, say three seconds later,\nit resumes. This event has actually no significance to you. You would\nnever know it had happened. In fact, if the computer was stopped for\n300 years instead of three seconds, it would have made no difference\nto your existence when it resumed. As far as you are concerned, while\nthe computer is stopped, time hasn\'t been frozen, time simply does not\nexist. When the computer resumes so do the changes in your eyes, your\nbrain, and the light and matter around you, and time exists again."\nhttp://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<4190E8FA.112971A5@hate.spam.net>...
> Orcinus Orca wrote:
> >
> > What is time?
> [snip]
>
> Time is what a clock reads - neither more nor less.
This definition can be stated far more generally, especially, I think,
to the benefit of the original poster.
This is what Peter Lynds said to me in an email this year:
"There isn't a flow of time and interval of time doesn't 'exist' as
such. Rather, [what exists is] the physical continuity that enables
events to take place continuously and successively, including the
progression of the hand of a clock or its mechanism."
It is pretty clear from this, if not from Uncle Al's definition, that
time doesn't define how things change, and the opposite is true: how
things change defines time.
This thought experiment should help you understand:
"Imagine that your existence is actually a computer simulation; your
body, your mind, and your world are defined by this computer program.
Then the computer stops. That means your eyes, your brain, and the
light and matter around you all stop. Then, say three seconds later,
it resumes. This event has actually no significance to you. You would
never know it had happened. In fact, if the computer was stopped for
300 years instead of three seconds, it would have made no difference
to your existence when it resumed. As far as you are concerned, while
the computer is stopped, time hasn't been frozen, time simply does not
exist. When the computer resumes so do the changes in your eyes, your
brain, and the light and matter around you, and time exists again."
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
Doug Sweetser
Nov25-04, 03:36 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Hello:\n\nTime is far more indifferent than this thought experiment of Peter Lynds\nclaims:\n\n> "Imagine that your existence is actually a computer simulation; your\n> body, your mind, and your world are defined by this computer program.\n> Then the computer stops. That means your eyes, your brain, and the\n> light and matter around you all stop. Then, say three seconds later,\n> it resumes. This event has actually no significance to you.\n\nBut an outside observer could record it.\n\nThe deep message of quantum mechanics is that we must use tools that\nhave continuous _and_ discrete attributes (waves and particles). Lynds\nlike the continuous model, which is create for classical physics. The\napproach will fail for quantum mechanics.\n\nSounds like he also has a problem with the existence of zero, a kind of\nold debate.\n\n\ndoug\nquaternions.com\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Hello:
Time is far more indifferent than this thought experiment of Peter Lynds
claims:
> "Imagine that your existence is actually a computer simulation; your
> body, your mind, and your world are defined by this computer program.
> Then the computer stops. That means your eyes, your brain, and the
> light and matter around you all stop. Then, say three seconds later,
> it resumes. This event has actually no significance to you.
But an outside observer could record it.
The deep message of quantum mechanics is that we must use tools that
have continuous _and_ discrete attributes (waves and particles). Lynds
like the continuous model, which is create for classical physics. The
approach will fail for quantum mechanics.
Sounds like he also has a problem with the existence of zero, a kind of
old debate.
doug
quaternions.com
Michael Hobbs
Nov25-04, 03:38 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Mike Helland <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote:\n> This thought experiment should help you understand:\n>\n> "Imagine that your existence is actually a computer simulation; your\n> body, your mind, and your world are defined by this computer program.\n> Then the computer stops. That means your eyes, your brain, and the\n> light and matter around you all stop. Then, say three seconds later,\n> it resumes. This event has actually no significance to you. You would\n> never know it had happened. In fact, if the computer was stopped for\n> 300 years instead of three seconds, it would have made no difference\n> to your existence when it resumed. As far as you are concerned, while\n> the computer is stopped, time hasn\'t been frozen, time simply does not\n> exist. When the computer resumes so do the changes in your eyes, your\n> brain, and the light and matter around you, and time exists again."\n> http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm\n>\nIf I think deeply about this experiment, I eventually come around\nto Zeno\'s paradox[1]. How is time modeled by the computer? That is,\nhow does the computer cause state to change from one simulated instance\nto the next? Does the computer need time to exist in its own frame of\nreference in order have CPU "cycles"? To what level of precision are\nobjects\' positions, energies, etc. stored in the computer\'s memory?\n\n[1] Zeno\'s paradox [roughly] states that motion cannot exist. In order\nfor an object to travel even one picometer, it must first traverse the\ninfinite range of infinitesimal spaces between 0 and 1 picometer. The\nsame is true even to travel one trillionth of a picometer. When an\nobject has to travel such an infinite expanse of infinitesimal spaces\njust to travel the tiniest fraction of space, how is it possible that\nit can move at all?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Mike Helland <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote:
> This thought experiment should help you understand:
>
> "Imagine that your existence is actually a computer simulation; your
> body, your mind, and your world are defined by this computer program.
> Then the computer stops. That means your eyes, your brain, and the
> light and matter around you all stop. Then, say three seconds later,
> it resumes. This event has actually no significance to you. You would
> never know it had happened. In fact, if the computer was stopped for
> 300 years instead of three seconds, it would have made no difference
> to your existence when it resumed. As far as you are concerned, while
> the computer is stopped, time hasn't been frozen, time simply does not
> exist. When the computer resumes so do the changes in your eyes, your
> brain, and the light and matter around you, and time exists again."
> http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
>
If I think deeply about this experiment, I eventually come around
to Zeno's paradox[1]. How is time modeled by the computer? That is,
how does the computer cause state to change from one simulated instance
to the next? Does the computer need time to exist in its own frame of
reference in order have CPU "cycles"? To what level of precision are
objects' positions, energies, etc. stored in the computer's memory?
[1] Zeno's paradox [roughly] states that motion cannot exist. In order
for an object to travel even one picometer, it must first traverse the
infinite range of infinitesimal spaces between and 1 picometer. The
same is true even to travel one trillionth of a picometer. When an
object has to travel such an infinite expanse of infinitesimal spaces
just to travel the tiniest fraction of space, how is it possible that
it can move at all?
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Might i also suggest checking out the book\nhttp://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/book.pdf ; it tries to explain a\nlot of concepts about space and time in physics.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\nThis post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com\nTo view this post with LaTeX images:\nhttp://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=52000#post370630\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Might i also suggest checking out the book
http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~rovelli/book.pdf ; it tries to explain a
lot of concepts about space and time in physics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com
To view this post with LaTeX images:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=52000#post370630
Mike Helland
Nov28-04, 06:02 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Doug Sweetser <sweetser@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<co202p\\$dp5\\$1@pcls4.std.com>...\n> Hello:\n>\n> Time is far more indifferent than this thought experiment of Peter Lynds\n> claims:\n>\n> > "Imagine that your existence is actually a computer simulation; your\n> > body, your mind, and your world are defined by this computer program.\n> > Then the computer stops. That means your eyes, your brain, and the\n> > light and matter around you all stop. Then, say three seconds later,\n> > it resumes. This event has actually no significance to you.\n>\n> But an outside observer could record it.\n\nYes, but the first sentence says that we may only consider what is\ncontained by the model to be in existence.\n\nHence, an outside observer would be considered non-existent in this\ncontext.\n\nBut you are otherwise right. The outside observer exists in a\ndifferent time, and, for that matter, a different space as different\nmatter.\n\nAnd, it is not Lynds\' thought experiment.\n\nIts implications are more or less that:\n\n> The deep message of quantum mechanics is that we must use tools that\n> have continuous _and_ discrete attributes\n\nYou are exactly right here.\n\nThis is similar to Newton when he says (in the Principia) that Space\nis both absolute (continuous) and relative (discrete).\n\nhttp://acnet.pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Newton.html\n\nThis might sound like some muddied thinking, but I assure you that the\nfollowing webpage (eight printed pages) that contains the quoted\nthought experiment presents these ideas far more coherently than a\nsingle usenet post may :-)\n\nhttp://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Doug Sweetser <sweetser@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<co202p$dp5$1@pcls4.std.com>...
> Hello:
>
> Time is far more indifferent than this thought experiment of Peter Lynds
> claims:
>
> > "Imagine that your existence is actually a computer simulation; your
> > body, your mind, and your world are defined by this computer program.
> > Then the computer stops. That means your eyes, your brain, and the
> > light and matter around you all stop. Then, say three seconds later,
> > it resumes. This event has actually no significance to you.
>
> But an outside observer could record it.
Yes, but the first sentence says that we may only consider what is
contained by the model to be in existence.
Hence, an outside observer would be considered non-existent in this
context.
But you are otherwise right. The outside observer exists in a
different time, and, for that matter, a different space as different
matter.
And, it is not Lynds' thought experiment.
Its implications are more or less that:
> The deep message of quantum mechanics is that we must use tools that
> have continuous _and_ discrete attributes
You are exactly right here.
This is similar to Newton when he says (in the Principia) that Space
is both absolute (continuous) and relative (discrete).
http://acnet.pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Newton.html
This might sound like some muddied thinking, but I assure you that the
following webpage (eight printed pages) that contains the quoted
thought experiment presents these ideas far more coherently than a
single usenet post may :-)
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
Mike Helland
Nov28-04, 06:02 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>mike@hobbshouse.org (Michael Hobbs) wrote in message news:<10qa2tjbrq9536d@corp.supernews.com>...\n> Mike Helland <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote:\n> > This thought experiment should help you understand:\n> >\n> > "Imagine that your existence is actually a computer simulation; your\n> > body, your mind, and your world are defined by this computer program.\n> > Then the computer stops. That means your eyes, your brain, and the\n> > light and matter around you all stop. Then, say three seconds later,\n> > it resumes. This event has actually no significance to you. You would\n> > never know it had happened. In fact, if the computer was stopped for\n> > 300 years instead of three seconds, it would have made no difference\n> > to your existence when it resumed. As far as you are concerned, while\n> > the computer is stopped, time hasn\'t been frozen, time simply does not\n> > exist. When the computer resumes so do the changes in your eyes, your\n> > brain, and the light and matter around you, and time exists again."\n> > http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm\n> >\n> If I think deeply about this experiment, I eventually come around\n> to Zeno\'s paradox[1].\n\nIf you follow the link to the webpage, you will see that Zeno is\nmentioned (albeit briefly) by the text.\n\n> How is time modeled by the computer?\n\nThe conjecture I cited doesn\'t "model time" as much as it model\'s an\nobjective reality that contains observers, and the observers create\ntheir own subjective reality including their own subjective analysis\nthat time exists.\n\nSo the computer doesn\'t model time, as much as it allows time to\nemerge as a consequence of the model.\n\nIf you see the connection between Zeno and the thought experiment, I\nam certain you will take something from the rest of the webpage.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>mike@hobbshouse.org (Michael Hobbs) wrote in message news:<10qa2tjbrq9536d@corp.supernews.com>...
> Mike Helland <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This thought experiment should help you understand:
> >
> > "Imagine that your existence is actually a computer simulation; your
> > body, your mind, and your world are defined by this computer program.
> > Then the computer stops. That means your eyes, your brain, and the
> > light and matter around you all stop. Then, say three seconds later,
> > it resumes. This event has actually no significance to you. You would
> > never know it had happened. In fact, if the computer was stopped for
> > 300 years instead of three seconds, it would have made no difference
> > to your existence when it resumed. As far as you are concerned, while
> > the computer is stopped, time hasn't been frozen, time simply does not
> > exist. When the computer resumes so do the changes in your eyes, your
> > brain, and the light and matter around you, and time exists again."
> > http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
> >
> If I think deeply about this experiment, I eventually come around
> to Zeno's paradox[1].
If you follow the link to the webpage, you will see that Zeno is
mentioned (albeit briefly) by the text.
> How is time modeled by the computer?
The conjecture I cited doesn't "model time" as much as it model's an
objective reality that contains observers, and the observers create
their own subjective reality including their own subjective analysis
that time exists.
So the computer doesn't model time, as much as it allows time to
emerge as a consequence of the model.
If you see the connection between Zeno and the thought experiment, I
am certain you will take something from the rest of the webpage.
Doug Sweetser
Nov29-04, 02:50 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Hello Mike:\n\nThis sounds like not allowing impartial observers to watch an election:\n\n> Yes, but the first sentence says that we may only consider what is\n> contained by the model to be in existence.\n>\n> Hence, an outside observer would be considered non-existent in this\n> context.\n\nI think the outside observer should always be allowed. They are not\nparticipants, but data collectors. Since science is built on data, it\nsounds very fishy to exclude them.\n\n> But you are otherwise right. The outside observer exists in a\n> different time, and, for that matter, a different space as different\n> matter.\n\nIt is accepted that different objects have different worldlines. The\nobserver is watching the stopped worldline and his own, which keeps on\nticking.\n\n\n> And, it is not Lynds\' thought experiment.\n\nPardon my error.\n\n\n> This is similar to Newton when he says (in the Principia) that Space\n> is both absolute (continuous) and relative (discrete).\n>\n> http://acnet.pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Newton.html\n\nThat refers to Galilean relativity, the story of the guy dropping\nsomething on a moving ship. There is no way to mix time and space, as\nhappens in special relativity. I don\'t think this passage has anything\nto do with the wave/particle duality that emerges from complex quantum\nmechanics.\n\n\n> http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm\n\nI visited, but saw no equations. Equations matter much more to me than\nthought experiments. Words can confuse, equations endure. It is my\nbias.\n\ndoug\nquaternions.com\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Hello Mike:
This sounds like not allowing impartial observers to watch an election:
> Yes, but the first sentence says that we may only consider what is
> contained by the model to be in existence.
>
> Hence, an outside observer would be considered non-existent in this
> context.
I think the outside observer should always be allowed. They are not
participants, but data collectors. Since science is built on data, it
sounds very fishy to exclude them.
> But you are otherwise right. The outside observer exists in a
> different time, and, for that matter, a different space as different
> matter.
It is accepted that different objects have different worldlines. The
observer is watching the stopped worldline and his own, which keeps on
ticking.
> And, it is not Lynds' thought experiment.
Pardon my error.
> This is similar to Newton when he says (in the Principia) that Space
> is both absolute (continuous) and relative (discrete).
>
> http://acnet.pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Newton.html
That refers to Galilean relativity, the story of the guy dropping
something on a moving ship. There is no way to mix time and space, as
happens in special relativity. I don't think this passage has anything
to do with the wave/particle duality that emerges from complex quantum
mechanics.
> http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
I visited, but saw no equations. Equations matter much more to me than
thought experiments. Words can confuse, equations endure. It is my
bias.
doug
quaternions.com
strong_field
Nov30-04, 12:47 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Doug Sweetser <sweetser@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<cod5l7\\$24k\\$1@pcls4.std.com>...\n> .... Equations matter much more to me than\n> thought experiments. Words can confuse, equations endure. It is my\n> bias.\n\nIn physics, sometimes words are more enduring than equations. For\ninstance, "distance fallen is proportional to times squared" are all\nwords but they are more precise and enduring than an equation such as\n\na*A^2 + B*cos(x) = 0\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Doug Sweetser <sweetser@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<cod5l7$24k$1@pcls4.std.com>...
> .... Equations matter much more to me than
> thought experiments. Words can confuse, equations endure. It is my
> bias.
In physics, sometimes words are more enduring than equations. For
instance, "distance fallen is proportional to times squared" are all
words but they are more precise and enduring than an equation such as
a*A^2 + B*cos(x) =
Mike Helland
Dec1-04, 11:04 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Doug Sweetser <sweetser@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<cod5l7\\$24k\\$1@pcls4.std.com>...\n\n> > Yes, but the first sentence says that we may only consider what is\n> > contained by the model to be in existence.\n> >\n> > Hence, an outside observer would be considered non-existent in this\n> > context.\n>\n> I think the outside observer should always be allowed. They are not\n> participants, but data collectors. Since science is built on data, it\n> sounds very fishy to exclude them.\n\nThe outside observer is allowed, but from the perspective of an\nobserver on the inside, the outside observer is, by definition,\nnon-existent.\n\nIt is a metaphysical/ontological point to be sure, which is based on\ndefinitions clearly provided by the conjecture.\n\nAnd, I would like to point out, that observers inside the model fill\nthe roll of data collectors, you don\'t need entities outside the model\nto accomplish that.\n\nIn that respect, the model is closer to our reality: we exist inside\nthe nature we are observing. If you\'re grasping what this actually\nmeans, thoughts of Goedel should start popping up in your mind.\n\n\n<snip>\n> > http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm\n>\n> I visited, but saw no equations. Equations matter much more to me than\n> thought experiments. Words can confuse, equations endure. It is my\n> bias.\n\nThis paper gives the formula for velocity, and then it explains how\nvelocity exists with the model as a series of computations very\ndifferent from the formula.\n\nThe paper seems to take a Goedelian approach to describing nature, and\nas a result requires a sort-of-Wolfram-like approach to formalizing\nthat description.\n\nA computer prototype is downloadable so instead of equations we\'re\ndealing with lines of code and OOP systems, though the prototype\ndoesn\'t do the conjecture any justice, at least from what I can make\nof it.\n\nNot that I am trying to persuade you to forgoe your bias and give the\ntext of second chance, much less attempt to make heads or tails of the\nradical claims contained there, but I thought clearing that up would\nonly be fair to the work.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Doug Sweetser <sweetser@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<cod5l7$24k$1@pcls4.std.com>...
> > Yes, but the first sentence says that we may only consider what is
> > contained by the model to be in existence.
> >
> > Hence, an outside observer would be considered non-existent in this
> > context.
>
> I think the outside observer should always be allowed. They are not
> participants, but data collectors. Since science is built on data, it
> sounds very fishy to exclude them.
The outside observer is allowed, but from the perspective of an
observer on the inside, the outside observer is, by definition,
non-existent.
It is a metaphysical/ontological point to be sure, which is based on
definitions clearly provided by the conjecture.
And, I would like to point out, that observers inside the model fill
the roll of data collectors, you don't need entities outside the model
to accomplish that.
In that respect, the model is closer to our reality: we exist inside
the nature we are observing. If you're grasping what this actually
means, thoughts of Goedel should start popping up in your mind.
<snip>
> > http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
>
> I visited, but saw no equations. Equations matter much more to me than
> thought experiments. Words can confuse, equations endure. It is my
> bias.
This paper gives the formula for velocity, and then it explains how
velocity exists with the model as a series of computations very
different from the formula.
The paper seems to take a Goedelian approach to describing nature, and
as a result requires a sort-of-Wolfram-like approach to formalizing
that description.
A computer prototype is downloadable so instead of equations we're
dealing with lines of code and OOP systems, though the prototype
doesn't do the conjecture any justice, at least from what I can make
of it.
Not that I am trying to persuade you to forgoe your bias and give the
text of second chance, much less attempt to make heads or tails of the
radical claims contained there, but I thought clearing that up would
only be fair to the work.
Eckard Blumschein
Dec3-04, 04:56 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>On 11/19/2004 8:28 PM, Marcel LeBel wrote:\n> Orcinus Orca wrote:\n>> What is time?\n\n\n[snip]\n\n> If you ask what is the passage of time when not\n> referenced to any observer i.e. when we are not measuring it, then you\n> are moving towards "ontology", or, the study of what things are by\n> themselves, outside the benefit of our perception and interpretation.\n> Since these ontological concepts are, by definition, not the one\n> acquired by perception, measurement or any other physical interaction\n> .... these concepts are metaphysical. They were acquired by logic FROM\n> the logical analysis OF physical experience.\n\n[snip]\n\n> A physical time quantity is defined by the experience of its\n> measurement. Since, by definition, it cannot exist without us around, I\n> submit to you that it is not fundamental. Of course it represents an\n> appreciation of something that really exists out there; but this\n> "appreciation" .. is just that; an appreciation.\n\nFuture time generally evades measurement. However, I am perhaps the\nfirst and only one who suggests consequently stipping off all ontology\nfrom the notion time and restricting a reality-bound time to a sliding,\nalways positive elapsed time. Don\'t get me wrong. While I collected a\nhuge number of practical benefits available with such observer-bound\ntime-scale, I nonetheless also appreciate the traditional event-related\nnotion of time extending from minus oo to plus oo in all cases dealing\nwith abstract quantities and in particular for any deterministic\ndescription.\n\nWhat about your derogatory usage of the term metaphysical, we should\nperhaps not always deny its original meaning. I consider my suggestion\nto restrict and invert the interpretation of time already a bit "meta"\n(in the meaning of "behind") physics. At least for many centuries, time\nhas been considered something that exists without any question forever.\nSo you might decide whether it is more speculative to just continue that\nbelief of to simply be open for the possibility that only directly,\nindirectly, or even merely in principle measurable time really matters\nwith respect to causality. The latter seemingly crazy idea would\nelegantly explain the miracle of time flow.\n\nEckard\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On 11/19/2004 8:28 PM, Marcel LeBel wrote:
> Orcinus Orca wrote:
>> What is time?
[snip]
> If you ask what is the passage of time when not
> referenced to any observer i.e. when we are not measuring it, then you
> are moving towards "ontology", or, the study of what things are by
> themselves, outside the benefit of our perception and interpretation.
> Since these ontological concepts are, by definition, not the one
> acquired by perception, measurement or any other physical interaction
> .... these concepts are metaphysical. They were acquired by logic FROM
> the logical analysis OF physical experience.
[snip]
> A physical time quantity is defined by the experience of its
> measurement. Since, by definition, it cannot exist without us around, I
> submit to you that it is not fundamental. Of course it represents an
> appreciation of something that really exists out there; but this
> "appreciation" .. is just that; an appreciation.
Future time generally evades measurement. However, I am perhaps the
first and only one who suggests consequently stipping off all ontology
from the notion time and restricting a reality-bound time to a sliding,
always positive elapsed time. Don't get me wrong. While I collected a
huge number of practical benefits available with such observer-bound
time-scale, I nonetheless also appreciate the traditional event-related
notion of time extending from minus oo to plus oo in all cases dealing
with abstract quantities and in particular for any deterministic
description.
What about your derogatory usage of the term metaphysical, we should
perhaps not always deny its original meaning. I consider my suggestion
to restrict and invert the interpretation of time already a bit "meta"
(in the meaning of "behind") physics. At least for many centuries, time
has been considered something that exists without any question forever.
So you might decide whether it is more speculative to just continue that
belief of to simply be open for the possibility that only directly,
indirectly, or even merely in principle measurable time really matters
with respect to causality. The latter seemingly crazy idea would
elegantly explain the miracle of time flow.
Eckard
Vincent N. Virgilio
Dec7-04, 11:12 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Orcinus Orca wrote:\n> What is time?\n>\n> I do not understand the concept of time in physics. It seems to me\n> that someone (Einstein?) said that if one could go faster than light,\n> one could go back in time. Now here is my doubt:\n\nIs it wrong or misleading to say that time is motion, continuous or\ndiscrete? I think others in this thread have said something similar,\nwith significantly more erudition.\n\nThen time travel sounds nonsensical, since there is no mysterious\ncontinuum to travel along; we are left with our usual 3d motion in a\ncommon space.\n\nVince Virgilio\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Orcinus Orca wrote:
> What is time?
>
> I do not understand the concept of time in physics. It seems to me
> that someone (Einstein?) said that if one could go faster than light,
> one could go back in time. Now here is my doubt:
Is it wrong or misleading to say that time is motion, continuous or
discrete? I think others in this thread have said something similar,
with significantly more erudition.
Then time travel sounds nonsensical, since there is no mysterious
continuum to travel along; we are left with our usual 3d motion in a
common space.
Vince Virgilio
Mike Helland
Dec11-04, 03:07 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Vincent N. Virgilio wrote:\n> Orcinus Orca wrote:\n> > What is time?\n> >\n> > I do not understand the concept of time in physics. It seems to me\n> > that someone (Einstein?) said that if one could go faster than light,\n> > one could go back in time. Now here is my doubt:\n>\n> Is it wrong or misleading to say that time is motion, continuous or\n> discrete? I think others in this thread have said something similar,\n\n> with significantly more erudition.\n\nWhat others have said is that time is the analysis of motion.\n\nSo time and motion are not quite equal, but time is a consequence of\nmotion, as opposed to being a prerequisite as many have shaped their\nintuition to believe.\n\n> Then time travel sounds nonsensical, since there is no mysterious\n> continuum to travel along; we are left with our usual 3d motion in a\n> common space.\n\nAgreed. However, some people have taken the line of thought and\nextended it to space as well. Time exists in the analysis of change,\nand so does space.\n\nSo we are left with our usual analysis of phenomena, and time and space\nare both results of this analysis.\n\nHere\'s what Dr. Gibbs has said:\n\n"Just as Einstein banished the ether as a medium for electromagnetism\nwe must now complete his work by banishing space-time as a medium for\nstring theory. The result will be a model in which space-time is\nrecovered as a result of the relationship between interacting strings."\nhttp://adela.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~motl/Gibbs/metaphys.htm\n\nIt sounds awfully confusing at first, and there aren\'t many\nexplanations of these ideas. The only explanation that I know of that\ntries to build a comprehensive case for this line of thinking is the\nrather fringe-ish borderline crank-ish Multiple Natures Conjecture:\nhttp://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Vincent N. Virgilio wrote:
> Orcinus Orca wrote:
> > What is time?
> >
> > I do not understand the concept of time in physics. It seems to me
> > that someone (Einstein?) said that if one could go faster than light,
> > one could go back in time. Now here is my doubt:
>
> Is it wrong or misleading to say that time is motion, continuous or
> discrete? I think others in this thread have said something similar,
> with significantly more erudition.
What others have said is that time is the analysis of motion.
So time and motion are not quite equal, but time is a consequence of
motion, as opposed to being a prerequisite as many have shaped their
intuition to believe.
> Then time travel sounds nonsensical, since there is no mysterious
> continuum to travel along; we are left with our usual 3d motion in a
> common space.
Agreed. However, some people have taken the line of thought and
extended it to space as well. Time exists in the analysis of change,
and so does space.
So we are left with our usual analysis of phenomena, and time and space
are both results of this analysis.
Here's what Dr. Gibbs has said:
"Just as Einstein banished the ether as a medium for electromagnetism
we must now complete his work by banishing space-time as a medium for
string theory. The result will be a model in which space-time is
recovered as a result of the relationship between interacting strings."
http://adela.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~motl/Gibbs/metaphys.htm
It sounds awfully confusing at first, and there aren't many
explanations of these ideas. The only explanation that I know of that
tries to build a comprehensive case for this line of thinking is the
rather fringe-ish borderline crank-ish Multiple Natures Conjecture:
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
Jack Martinelli
Dec17-04, 07:53 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message\nnews:4190E8FA.112971A5@hate.spam.net...\n > Orcinus Orca wrote:\n>>\n>> What is time?\n> [snip]\n>\n> Time is what a clock reads - neither more nor less.\n\nCircular.\n\nIf you were to characterize the measurement of time, wouldn\'t you need a\nreference time to do so? I.e., how would you know what a "time" is without\nsomehow just knowing what it was?\n\nRegards\n\nJack Martinelli\n\nhttp://www.martinelli.org\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4190E8FA.112971A5@hate.spam.net...
> Orcinus Orca wrote:
>>
>> What is time?
> [snip]
>
> Time is what a clock reads - neither more nor less.
Circular.
If you were to characterize the measurement of time, wouldn't you need a
reference time to do so? I.e., how would you know what a "time" is without
somehow just knowing what it was?
Regards
Jack Martinelli
http://www.martinelli.org
Mike Helland
Dec19-04, 06:47 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Jack Martinelli wrote:\n> "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message\n> news:4190E8FA.112971A5@hate.spam.net...\n> > Orcinus Orca wrote:\n> >>\n> >> What is time?\n> > [snip]\n> >\n> > Time is what a clock reads - neither more nor less.\n>\n> Circular.\n>\n> If you were to characterize the measurement of time, wouldn\'t you need a\n> reference time to do so? I.e., how would you know what a "time" is without\n> somehow just knowing what it was?\n\nYou just make it up.\n\nAs I said in another message, Uncle Al\'s definition can be made far\nmore general:\n\n"Time is the analysis of change."\n\nNow if we\'re talking about the change in the hands on a clock, the\ndecay of radioactive material, or the movement of the sun, we have time\nas a result.\n\nIn the case of the movement of the sun, we made up the fact that "the\namount of time it takes for the sun, when directly above me, to set,\nand then rise again to directly above me, is 24 hours."\n\nSo, you see, you know what it is by making up arbitrary measurements.\nJust like measuring space with meters or feet. We just made it up.\n\nUncle Al\'s statement isn\'t circular, but as I\'ve shown, it can\ndefinitely be improved on.\n--\nhttp://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Jack Martinelli wrote:
> "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:4190E8FA.112971A5@hate.spam.net...
> > Orcinus Orca wrote:
> >>
> >> What is time?
> > [snip]
> >
> > Time is what a clock reads - neither more nor less.
>
> Circular.
>
> If you were to characterize the measurement of time, wouldn't you need a
> reference time to do so? I.e., how would you know what a "time" is without
> somehow just knowing what it was?
You just make it up.
As I said in another message, Uncle Al's definition can be made far
more general:
"Time is the analysis of change."
Now if we're talking about the change in the hands on a clock, the
decay of radioactive material, or the movement of the sun, we have time
as a result.
In the case of the movement of the sun, we made up the fact that "the
amount of time it takes for the sun, when directly above me, to set,
and then rise again to directly above me, is 24 hours."
So, you see, you know what it is by making up arbitrary measurements.
Just like measuring space with meters or feet. We just made it up.
Uncle Al's statement isn't circular, but as I've shown, it can
definitely be improved on.
--
http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
Dan Platt
Dec19-04, 06:51 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Sort of circular. High school geometry proposes postulates involving\nundefined terms, upon which definitions and theorems are built.\nHowever, to an operationalist, the postulates define the undefined terms.\n\nNewton proposed an absolute space or frame for his laws of motion. Mach\nnoted that it is impossible to construct an experiment to discover this\nabsolute frame. The best one can do is discover a subset of frames\n(inertial frames) moving uniformly or at rest with each other, in which\nNewton\'s laws all remain in force (Newton\'s laws don\'t work right in\n"non-inertial" frames). Mach reformulated Newton\'s laws in light of\nthis observation.\n\nA similar thing could be done for clocks (I believe this argument is\ncontained in Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler\'s "Gravitation"). The idea\nthat a free mass (no forces) remains at rest or in uniform motion is\nsufficient to define a family of clocks. Consider a clock measuring\ntime t, and another one measuring a time T. These are related some way\nT=T(t). A free mass satisfies:\n\nd^2x/dt^2 = 0.\n\nBut d^2x/dt^2 = (d/dt)(dx/dT dT/dt) = (dT/dt)^2 d^2x/dT^2 +\n(dx/dT)(d^2T/dt^2).\n\nIf T is a good clock, then d^2x/dT^2 = 0, too. If the mass is at rest,\ndx/dt = 0, and there is no constraint on the clocks. If dx/dt != 0, the\nclocks are constrained so that\n\nd^2T/dt^2 = 0.\n\nThis implies T = a t + b for some constants a and b.\n\nSo -- there\'s not just one clock, but a family of clocks that must be\nrelated to each other somehow in order to be "good" clocks.\n\nDan\n\nJack Martinelli wrote:\n> "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message\n> news:4190E8FA.112971A5@hate.spam.net...\n>\n>>Orci nus Orca wrote:\n>>\n>>>What is time?\n>>\n>>[snip]\n>>\n>>Time is what a clock reads - neither more nor less.\n>\n>\n> Circular.\n>\n> If you were to characterize the measurement of time, wouldn\'t you need a\n> reference time to do so? I.e., how would you know what a "time" is without\n> somehow just knowing what it was?\n>\n> Regards\n>\n> Jack Martinelli\n>\n> http://www.martinelli.org\n>\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Sort of circular. High school geometry proposes postulates involving
undefined terms, upon which definitions and theorems are built.
However, to an operationalist, the postulates define the undefined terms.
Newton proposed an absolute space or frame for his laws of motion. Mach
noted that it is impossible to construct an experiment to discover this
absolute frame. The best one can do is discover a subset of frames
(inertial frames) moving uniformly or at rest with each other, in which
Newton's laws all remain in force (Newton's laws don't work right in
"non-inertial" frames). Mach reformulated Newton's laws in light of
this observation.
A similar thing could be done for clocks (I believe this argument is
contained in Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's "Gravitation"). The idea
that a free mass (no forces) remains at rest or in uniform motion is
sufficient to define a family of clocks. Consider a clock measuring
time t, and another one measuring a time T. These are related some way
T=T(t). A free mass satisfies:
d^{2x}/dt^2 = .
But d^{2x}/dt^2 = (d/dt)(dx/dT dT/dt) = (dT/dt)^2 d^{2x}/dT^2 +(dx/dT)(d^{2T}/dt^2).
If T is a good clock, then d^{2x}/dT^2 = 0, too. If the mass is at rest,
dx/dt = 0, and there is no constraint on the clocks. If dx/dt != 0, the
clocks are constrained so that
d^{2T}/dt^2 = .
This implies T = a t + b for some constants a and b.
So -- there's not just one clock, but a family of clocks that must be
related to each other somehow in order to be "good" clocks.
Dan
Jack Martinelli wrote:
> "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:4190E8FA.112971A5@hate.spam.net...
>
>>Orcinus Orca wrote:
>>
>>>What is time?
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>Time is what a clock reads - neither more nor less.
>
>
> Circular.
>
> If you were to characterize the measurement of time, wouldn't you need a
> reference time to do so? I.e., how would you know what a "time" is without
> somehow just knowing what it was?
>
> Regards
>
> Jack Martinelli
>
> http://www.martinelli.org
>
island5@earthlink.net
Dec19-04, 07:18 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>If you extend this to the universe, then time is at least a factor of\nthe rate of entropy of the universe, which is absolute and quantized in\naccordance with the limits of the physical constants, which derive the\nplanck time as the smallest meaningful amount of time. This would make\nthe Zeno Paradox non-appicable below the planck scale as the arrow hits\nthe target when half the distance between the arrow and the target\nfalls to less than the planck length, as space and time fall off into\nuntangible non-existence.\n\nStringy-Poop be damned...\nwww.anthropic-principle.ORG\nEverything you fear...\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>If you extend this to the universe, then time is at least a factor of
the rate of entropy of the universe, which is absolute and quantized in
accordance with the limits of the physical constants, which derive the
planck time as the smallest meaningful amount of time. This would make
the Zeno Paradox non-appicable below the planck scale as the arrow hits
the target when half the distance between the arrow and the target
falls to less than the planck length, as space and time fall off into
untangible non-existence.
Stringy-Poop be damned...
www.anthropic-principle.ORG
Everything you fear...
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.