Does Time Really Exist? Debunking Common Beliefs

[kurious]

Space and time can't be decoupled for normal mass:
I think Minkowski said: "who has seen a place that did not occur at a time and a time
(clock) that did not occur at a place".
To violate Lorentz transformations needs faster than light travel.
It is FTL speeds that anyone challenging standard relativity must prove.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

You have yet to explain why it is wrong. Have you not read the announcement prohibiting this sort of unscientific speculation?

You certainly have the authority on this forum to prohibit, whatever you want, but I am sorry you must make philosophy if you want to make good science. From my first post on this forum my point was established clearly, and it has to do with that impossibility to include the third in your reasoning. I hope you have read Aristotle, as it was him and his prevailing logic my starting point. The greatest mistake of philosophers at all times and as so scientists is precisely to think that it is not possible to conceive a framework without that logic; down in this same post, in your answers, there, we have a clear example of that mistake.

First, it is not possible to have a "nonrelativistic Lorentz transformation". The Lorentz transformation is what tells us that time and space are coupled. And I have no idea of why you think that complex numbers can change this.

Wrong, there is the possibility to have a "nonrelativistic Lorentz transformation" if you use complex numbers as starting point. Behind complex numbers there is clearly a radical duality; there is the chance to have an equal sign with the third included, as in Euler relation; a symbol for separation of two different, as it were, orders of reality, so it is that symbol the one that permits us not to confuse, pearls and apples, space and time, wave and particle.

Second, there is no experimental evidence that requires time to be decoupled from space.

If your paradigm do not permit to see that experimental evidence, you will not see it.

Third, how can a conception of reality be philosophically correct if it embraces both time being coupled to space and time not being coupled to space? Certainly a good ontological theory must at least be logical.

Yes, here is the point I pointed out up about the impossibility to include the third in your constructs. Fortunately we have Euler relation, with its mentioned remarkable property that makes it an ideal tool to represent the covariant laws of nature.
Yes, for the sake of applications we couple time to space, we close our systems, but that certainly does not mean all reality, as the same uncertainty principle has the chance to have both at the same time, a wave manifestation and a particle manifestation or complemetarity.

And Fourth, it really doesn't matter if a scientific theory matches your philosophical taste. If that be the case, and the theory is consistent with evidence, then it's time to change your philosophy.

It really does not have anything to do with a taste in this case, remember that you see what you have been prepared to see; if your reasoning does not permit to see the chance to have a different way to cope reality, something very wrong is going with it, don't you think?

No, it is not. Einstein did not make use of the Euler identity at all. I have no idea of why you think it's relevant.

Yes, I know he didn't and somewhere on this forum I said why it is relevant, if the arguments given above about the third does not seem to you so.

And yes, all physical laws must conform to it.
Because relativity has been borne out by experiment. Schrodinger has too, but we know where its limitations are.

Humm, relativity was borne out by experiment? I thought it was by the work Einstein did when putting the Lorentz transformation group in a philosophical context known as relativity. Are not the Lorentz transformation group as equations the ones that permit validation with the experimental evidence?

It doesn't matter if you can find another path to SR. Indeed, more than one derivation of the Lorentz transformation exists. The point is that whichever path you take, it must have as its destination the Lorentz transformation, in which space and time are manifestly coupled. There is simply no way around it.

To be or not to be decoupled is certainly not a matter of the Lorentz transformation group per ser, but it is:
- on the one side the result of the way we interpret reality for the sake of application,
- and on the other a result of that reality "out there" with uncertainty included, so in this sense it is our symbolism the one that must be changed if it does not fit to it.

I hope I have been suficiently clear, as I do not pretend to post anymore regarding this thread, for me it is closed. Thank you so much for this most interesting experience!

Best regards
EP
PD: Do you have on this forum a way of presenting my findinds about Euler relation and its relation to the fundamental equations of physics?, if yes, I gladly will present that framework.

 

[quantumdude]

You certainly have the authority on this forum to prohibit, whatever you want, but I am sorry you must make philosophy if you want to make good science.

But you have to make good philosophy to make good science. That means you have to provide arguments and evidence for your position, which you have consistently failed to do.

From my first post on this forum my point was established clearly, and it has to do with that impossibility to include the third in your reasoning. I hope you have read Aristotle, as it was him and his prevailing logic my starting point. The greatest mistake of philosophers at all times and as so scientists is precisely to think that it is not possible to conceive a framework without that logic; down in this same post, in your answers, there, we have a clear example of that mistake.

Are you saying that it is a mistake not to use an "included middle" in our logic?

Tom: First, it is not possible to have a "nonrelativistic Lorentz transformation". The Lorentz transformation is what tells us that time and space are coupled. And I have no idea of why you think that complex numbers can change this.

Epsilon Pi: Wrong, there is the possibility to have a "nonrelativistic Lorentz transformation" if you use complex numbers as starting point.

Wrong. It is possible to start from the Lorentz transformation and recover Einstein's 2 postulates from them. Furthermore, the Lorentz transformations explicitly encode the coupling of space and time. In fact, it is the interdependence of spatial and temporal parameters in the Lorentz transformation that physicists define as the coupling of space and time. As I said before, if you change the LT in such a way that space and time are decoupled, then it won't be the LT anymore.

But since you won't even look at the Lorentz transformations, it is hopeless to try to convince you on this. All I can do is correct you.

Behind complex numbers there is clearly a radical duality;

Duality between which two concepts, exactly?

there is the chance to have an equal sign with the third included,

Again, what is "the third"?

as in Euler relation; a symbol for separation of two different, as it were, orders of reality, so it is that symbol the one that permits us not to confuse, pearls and apples, space and time, wave and particle.

Since you have not said what those two orders of reality are, or how the Euler relation can be used to separate them, this makes absolutely no sense.

Tom: Second, there is no experimental evidence that requires time to be decoupled from space.

Epsilon Pi: If your paradigm do not permit to see that experimental evidence, you will not see it.

So that means you are not going to present it?

This is a cheap cop-out that is typical of crackpots who cannot defend their position.

Tom: Third, how can a conception of reality be philosophically correct if it embraces both time being coupled to space and time not being coupled to space? Certainly a good ontological theory must at least be logical.

Epsilon Pi: Yes, here is the point I pointed out up about the impossibility to include the third in your constructs.

It seems clear that you are saying that "the third" is "the included middle", but without your explicitly saying so I am not going to assume it. I will point out, however, that using an included middle reasoning system is hopeless because if the compound statement (P and ~P) is true, then it is possible to prove any statement "true", whether it is true or not.

Surely it should not be thought that this is good philosophy.

Fortunately we have Euler relation, with its mentioned remarkable property that makes it an ideal tool to represent the covariant laws of nature.

The Euler relation does not "represent the covariant laws of nature". Tensor equations do that.

Yes, for the sake of applications we couple time to space, we close our systems, but that certainly does not mean all reality, as the same uncertainty principle has the chance to have both at the same time, a wave manifestation and a particle manifestation or complemetarity.

You just don't get it. "We" don't couple time to space for any applications! Space and time are coupled, and "we" are powerless to do anything about it. The coupling of space and time as exhibited explicitly in the Lorentz transformations is a derived result of the 2 postulates of relativity, which are also features of our universe. And there is no analog between the coupling of time and space in SR and the unertainty principle in QM. Both are derived independently of the other, and the two do not have any formal similarity.

It really does not have anything to do with a taste in this case,

Of course it does. In this thread, all you have done is deny that time and space are coupled because it seems wrong to you. You don't have a single argument, or a single piece of experimental evidence to support your position. If there were ever a more clear cut instance of someone rejecting a scientific theory because it does not sit well with his philosophical taste, then I have not seen it.

remember that you see what you have been prepared to see; if your reasoning does not permit to see the chance to have a different way to cope reality, something very wrong is going with it, don't you think?

This is just another cheap cop-out. You have not presented a "different way to cope reality", so how could I be expected to comment on it?

In any case, I would say that the mathematical description of the universe is not subject to such a rash rewriting as you would have us do. You are simply wrong to think that both a statement and its negation can both be descriptive of our universe.

I'll note here that you have referred to complementarity, and I suspect that this is a veiled reference to quantum logic. If so, then note that that will not rescue your position against the excluded middle (if that is indeed your position) because multiple-valued logics (such as those that can accommodate complementarity) can still have an excluded middle.

Yes, I know he didn't and somewhere on this forum I said why it is relevant, if the arguments given above about the third does not seem to you so.

You never presented an argument. All you said was that it is a mistake not to use "the third". You did not say why, nor did you even say what "the third" is.

Humm, relativity was borne out by experiment?

Yes. Einstein opened his 1905 paper by noting the experimental failure of Galilean relativity as applied to Maxwell's equations.

See On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.

I thought it was by the work Einstein did when putting the Lorentz transformation group in a philosophical context known as relativity.

You thought wrong. Einstein derived the LT from 2 postulates: one physical, one mathematical. There's no metaphysics involved here.

Are not the Lorentz transformation group as equations the ones that permit validation with the experimental evidence?

They are. But the postulates also permit such validation.

See The Experimental Basis for Special Relativity.

To be or not to be decoupled is certainly not a matter of the Lorentz transformation group per ser, but it is:
- on the one side the result of the way we interpret reality for the sake of application,

Wrong. As previously noted, time and space are manifestly linked via the Lorentz transformation. This is the definition of the concept of the coupling of time and space.

- and on the other a result of that reality "out there" with uncertainty included, so in this sense it is our symbolism the one that must be changed if it does not fit to it.

You simply have no idea of what you are talking about. The coupling of time and space as in the Lorentz transformation fits perfectly well with the uncertainty principle. I have repeatedly referred you to Klein-Gordon and to Dirac. But I'm convinced that you haven't investigated it, so this is hopeless.

I hope I have been suficiently clear, as I do not pretend to post anymore regarding this thread, for me it is closed.

You have made it sufficiently clear that you aren't interested in rigorous scientific or philosophical debate.

Thank you so much for this most interesting experience!

I wish I could say the same. You did exactly what I asked you not to do: present unsubstantiated opinions with no proof or evidence.

PD: Do you have on this forum a way of presenting my findinds about Euler relation and its relation to the fundamental equations of physics?, if yes, I gladly will present that framework.

You can attach a file to a post, or you can simply write it in a post.

 

[enigma]

Humm, relativity was borne out by experiment?

GPS systems wouldn't work without taking relativistic time dilation into account. I invite you to try it out for yourself.

Step-by-step instructions on how the receivers calculate their position is freely available on the web, as are the pseudo-random-noise signals from the satellites themselves.

I assure you that you won't get a correct result by triangulating with three satellites. You need a fourth to account for the relativistic clock bias.

 

[brodix]

Tom,

The objectivity is contained in the connection itself. That is, while it is readily admitted that we can only see things from our point of view, we can calculate what will be seen from any point of view, via the LT.

Any point of view is subjective. In fact the very act of defining any kind of order requires a point of view. That doesn't mean that nature requires a point of view. My reference here is that a point of view is just that, a point and from that point of view, space and time are fundamentally connected, as it takes time for the point to move in space. The measure of time, in fact is specifically subjective, in that it measures a particular action against its context. Temperature is a more objective measure of motion, as it is a general level of activity against a predetermined scale.

Neither space nor spacetime is considered a reference frame by anyone. A reference frame is nothing other than a state of motion from which one can assign spacetime coordinates.

I'm afraid you've lost me on that. If a reference frame is a state of motion, isn't that in space and in time? Space being the state and time being the motion? Presumably all reference frames are in motion, because they are relative to one another, so there would be no way to determine which might be in motion and which might not be.

That's the second time someone has said that something is taken for granted. Why is it that you and Epsilon Pi think that? Why can you not see that if something is corroborated experimentally, then it is not taken for granted?

My point is that there are various scientific concepts, specifically matter/anti-matter and absolute zero which assume a neutral vacuum as an equilibrium. In fact Einstein added the cosmological constant to balance out the effects of gravity, because while he realized the reference frame of space isn't fixed, he assumed there was some more basic equilibrium to the universe. Since then theorists have determined that at the very least, space must be very close to this balance for the universe to be as stable as it is. Omega=1. Yet there is the assumption that this is sheer coincidence and the universe could as easily be collapsing in on itself, or expanding into nothingness.

Scientific reductionism is like a predetor that can only sense motion.

How's that?

Not all science is unconsciously reductionistic, in fact much of scientific inquiry is that attempt to see beyond the subjective. That being said, I refer first to my first point, in that simply determining principles that apply to any subjective perspective doesn't make an observation objective, it just makes it subjectively general.

Second, I will refer to the primary point I keep making in these discussions; That if you are measuring motion, then the frame of reference is in motion as well and is a counter to the point of reference, otherwise you end up with this static fourth dimension of space that the point of reference is presumably moving through. Remember, the frame of reference isn't some Newtonian universal field. It is all other bodies, which are in motion and as I've pointed out, there is a general scientific agreement that they do exist in a larger equilibrium, so if you have isolated out a particular motion as a reference, then this leaves a void in that larger equilibrium. As QM points out, measuring something affects it, so measuring the rate of motion of the universe affects it equal to your measure.

I hope you don't think we derive the idea of time from literal rotating clock hands! It can be anything: digital watches,

You are simply seeing the abstract units, not the process that measures them. As I've pointed out, units of time go from beginning to end, while the process goes on to the next, leaving the old. This is a good example of the subjective nature of time, as we tend to view units of time as sequential, because we only view them from one point. The reality is that there are people all around the Earth and they all have overlapping units of time, so that as a day is dawning in one part of the world, it is fading in another part and the process of time is going on to new units as it leaves the old.

atomic clocks, decaying muons,

Regular processes that we can effectively use to measure standard units. Notice how we associate the marking of the unit with decay. Meanwhile the process goes on to the next measure...

etc...

As in?

That is irrelevant. What matters is that they keep time in our frame of reference. But as I said, there is no need to have literal rotating clock hands.

What is our frame of reference? The Earth rotating relative to the sun? From our perspective, it is the sun that is moving from east to west, but from a more objective perspective, it is the Earth that is moving, as it rotates west to east.

Care to explain, in concrete terms and with evidence?

I feel I have been, but that is only my frame of reference, so my question is to you; Care to listen with as much willingness to agree as to disagree?

regards,

brodix

ps. While our logical processes have much in common with the linear cause and effect process of time, our emotions and politics have much in common with the general level of distributive activity that is temperature.

 

[kurious]

Tom Mattson:
You have made it sufficiently clear that you aren't interested in rigorous scientific or philosophical debate.

Kurious:
Who defines what is rigorous and what is scientific?
There are scientists on these forums and there are plenty of physicists too...

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Hello Mr Mattson, as we have entered in sort of vicious circle or in an incommensurability problem I have prepared a paper in pdf, it is about 2OOkb, and the system only permits 56kb, could you please help me in this sense? Thanks
Regards
EP

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Thanks Kurious for giving me a hand, but there we have a problem that will not be solved with discussions, as "schools guided by different paradigms are always slightly at cross-purposes"
My best regards
EP

Tom Mattson:
You have made it sufficiently clear that you aren't interested in rigorous scientific or philosophical debate.

Kurious:
Who defines what is rigorous and what is scientific?
There are scientists on these forums and there are plenty of physicists too...

 

[Epsilon Pi]

I have not denied at any moment the experimental evidence that can be obtained with the Lorentz transformation group, but the way it has been put in a relativistic philosophical framework. In fact one the best things we have from that group is that with them Maxwell's equations remain invariant.
Regards
EP

GPS systems wouldn't work without taking relativistic time dilation into account. I invite you to try it out for yourself.

Step-by-step instructions on how the receivers calculate their position is freely available on the web, as are the pseudo-random-noise signals from the satellites themselves.

I assure you that you won't get a correct result by triangulating with three satellites. You need a fourth to account for the relativistic clock bias.

 

[quantumdude]

Who defines what is rigorous and what is scientific?

That should be obvious!

Logic and evidence define what is rigorous and scientific.

 

[quantumdude]

Any point of view is subjective. In fact the very act of defining any kind of order requires a point of view. That doesn't mean that nature requires a point of view. My reference here is that a point of view is just that, a point and from that point of view, space and time are fundamentally connected, as it takes time for the point to move in space.

Of course any pont of view is subjective. But it is not from any single subjective frame of reference that we say that space and time are coupled. It is because of the objective relationship that connects all frames of reference that we say that space and time are fundamentally connected.

The measure of time, in fact is specifically subjective, in that it measures a particular action against its context.

What?

Temperature is a more objective measure of motion, as it is a general level of activity against a predetermined scale.

Temperature is no more objective that time. It is not Lorentz invariant.

Tom: Neither space nor spacetime is considered a reference frame by anyone. A reference frame is nothing other than a state of motion from which one can assign spacetime coordinates.

brodix: I'm afraid you've lost me on that.

Then study relativity, and stop making up terms.

If a reference frame is a state of motion, isn't that in space and in time?

Yes. That doesn't mean that spacetime is a frame of reference.

My point is that there are various scientific concepts, specifically matter/anti-matter and absolute zero which assume a neutral vacuum as an equilibrium.

Then why do you say that the point of view taken by physics on spacetime is "taken for granted"?

Not all science is unconsciously reductionistic, in fact much of scientific inquiry is that attempt to see beyond the subjective. That being said, I refer first to my first point, in that simply determining principles that apply to any subjective perspective doesn't make an observation objective, it just makes it subjectively general.

How does "subjectively general" differ from "objective"?

Second, I will refer to the primary point I keep making in these discussions; That if you are measuring motion, then the frame of reference is in motion as well

Why say that? If it is approximately inertial, then the frame can be regarded as at rest.

and is a counter to the point of reference,

What do you mean by "counter to the point of reference"?

otherwise you end up with this static fourth dimension of space that the point of reference is presumably moving through.

Who presumes what now?

Remember, the frame of reference isn't some Newtonian universal field.

What frame of refernce?

It is all other bodies, which are in motion and as I've pointed out, there is a general scientific agreement that they do exist in a larger equilibrium, so if you have isolated out a particular motion as a reference, then this leaves a void in that larger equilibrium.

What?

When one isolates a particular motion as a reference, one does so as a mental exercise. It cannot possibly leave a "void in that larger equilibrium", because it has no efficacy in the real world. What you say here makes no sense.

As QM points out, measuring something affects it, so measuring the rate of motion of the universe affects it equal to your measure.

We were talking about spacetime in relativity, remember? What does this have to do with anything?

You are simply seeing the abstract units, not the process that measures them.

No, I'm not. But you are putting undue emphasis on a process that may be used to measure time. Rotating clock hands are not necessary.

As I've pointed out, units of time go from beginning to end, while the process goes on to the next, leaving the old. This is a good example of the subjective nature of time, as we tend to view units of time as sequential, because we only view them from one point. The reality is that there are people all around the Earth and they all have overlapping units of time, so that as a day is dawning in one part of the world, it is fading in another part and the process of time is going on to new units as it leaves the old.

This is completely irrelevant to Relativity. It doesn't matter that it is pitch black in one part of the world, when at the same time day is breaking in another part. What matters is that clocks tick at the same rate in different frames.

Regular processes that we can effectively use to measure standard units. Notice how we associate the marking of the unit with decay. Meanwhile the process goes on to the next measure...

We don't just associate the marking with decay. We associate the unit with any rate that is known.

As in?

As in any time-dependent process with a known period or rate.

What is our frame of reference? The Earth rotating relative to the sun? From our perspective, it is the sun that is moving from east to west, but from a more objective perspective, it is the Earth that is moving, as it rotates west to east.

Let me help: It is the Earth that is rotating.
The acceleration can be measured.

I feel I have been, but that is only my frame of reference, so my question is to you;

You feel wrong. You have not presented any evidence as to why you think science overlooks any "equilibrium". Nor have you presented any specific cases in which this oversight has been been exhibited, nor have you even explained what the problem is, in your opinion. All you have done is assert that science is overlooking something.

Well, that's not very helpful!

Care to listen with as much willingness to agree as to disagree?

Always. Do you care to do the same? And do you care to present actual evidence to back up your claims?

 

[kurious]

This forum should be divided into a mathematical TD and a TD for word wars.
That way everyone would be happy.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Thinking and thinking in your position, and trying to be on your side, I really thanks to T.S.K and his landmark work, as only through it I can understand your reticence to even consider another point of view. You really are the best interpreter of normal science I have ever met, but paraphrasing T.S.K, interpretation presupossed a paradigm, and yours is quite clear, a philosophical conception of reality called relativity, which is part now of normal science, "an enterprise that, as we have seen, aims to refine, extend, and articulate a paradigm that is already in existence."
Is not this the reason why what seems to you so obvious is not for others?
In regards to your claiming of evidence regarding my proposal, next week I will look a good site to publish four papers, that I don't pretend will convince you, but my aim is just to share a different point of view in presenting those fundamental equations of physics in a rigorous way, I mean, mathematically but by means of complex numbers, as it were, with the third included; to share them with those all interested in the evolution of philosophy of science, and in another point of view regarding it.
In the meanwhile I thought you might be interested in my paper at my profile, Physics, Edgar Morin and Complex thinking. As an engineer, as scientist, as philosopher my main concern have been always not to be in sort of cocoon but try to understand and see different points of view independently of my own.
My best regards
EP

That should be obvious!

Logic and evidence define what is rigorous and scientific.

 

[quantumdude]

This forum should be divided into a mathematical TD and a TD for word wars.
That way everyone would be happy.

When's the last time you saw a would-be theorist at PF even try to put his ideas on mathematical footing?

 

[quantumdude]

Thinking and thinking in your position, and trying to be on your side, I really thanks to T.S.K and his landmark work, as only through it I can understand your reticence to even consider another point of view.

You haven't presented another point of view!

You won't present arguments or evidence, and you won't answer questions. I can't read your mind.

 

[north]

Crap = crap. Time and space are inseparable,
___________________________________________

really! explain!

 

[north]

At the infinitesimal 1D region of spacetime, space and time cannot be distinguished and both are curved by the very strong orthogonal forces as absolute constant localized angular accelerations. Because of the extreme forces, the constant change of directions of these accelerations, once started, are very difficult to vary hence the changing direction is conserved and these can become a principle of directional invariance.

___________________________________________

of course logically 1D cannot exist in the first place,regardless of minuteness of depth.

 

[north]

time's essence is change. and i mean beyond biology.for inanimate substance change(combinations) was here well before our existence.

 

[brodix]

Tom,

Of course any pont of view is subjective. But it is not from any single subjective frame of reference that we say that space and time are coupled. It is because of the objective relationship that connects all frames of reference that we say that space and time are fundamentally connected.

I do realize what the position of relativity is. My argument is that space is a first order equilibrium that is the basis for physical reality and that time is a third order method of measuring the motion of the physical.

The measure of time, in fact is specifically subjective, in that it measures a particular action against its context.


What?

You are measuring a specific action, relative to its context. That is why, when you change the context, such as putting the timekeeping device in outer space, the measure of time changes.

Temperature is no more objective that time. It is not Lorentz invariant.

Let's use a crowd of people as our example; If we are to measure some general level of activity on a scale, such as the number of people moving, relative to the total, what their average speed is, etc. it is a form of temperature reading, just as a thermometer measures the level of atomic activity in its location. Now if we were to draw a line of the path any particular person is taking, it would be their timeline. Now this line is an abstraction because no two people can occupy the same space, so only by all people moving about is it possible for anyone person to keep moving. I can make this model much more complex, such as comparing the forming of relationships and how they slow movement down to the relationship of energy to matter, etc. but I’ will stick to the point in question; That temperature records a more basic, general level of activity and as such is objective in the it doesn’t take the perspective of anyone person. In fact there have been recent studies on the property of nanotubes, in which temperature has ceased to function because the size in question has gone below the level at which atoms are judged statistically and are individual operators.

Then study relativity, and stop making up terms.

You like to tell others to provide examples and obviously you have a more subtle understanding of the specific understanding of spacetime as being something other than a reference frame for bodies in action. Since I’m assuming this is still a forum for education and exchanging of ideas, rather then the soapbox we all treat it as, why don’t you try to give me a short explanation?

If a reference frame is a state of motion, isn't that in space and in time?

Yes. That doesn't mean that spacetime is a frame of reference.

You deleted my last sentence; Space is a state and time is motion.

My point is that there are various scientific concepts, specifically matter/anti-matter and absolute zero which assume a neutral vacuum as an equilibrium.

Then why do you say that the point of view taken by physics on spacetime is "taken for granted"?

Because of the assumption that the balance between the rate of expansion and the force of gravity is coincidental, rather then the consequence of a basic equilibrium.

How does "subjectively general" differ from "objective"?

That sentence wasn’t clear. I’m sorry. I should have said something along the lines of; generally applicable to all subjective perspectives.

Why say that? If it is approximately inertial, then the frame can be regarded as at rest.

This is my whole point! What we are measuring is MOTION! The frame isn’t an absolute and the point of reference is a valid frame in itself, therefore the reference frame is effectively moving in the opposite direction of the point. In systems where the point and the frame are closer in size, such as the moon to the earth, this effect is far more evident then where the relationship isn’t comparable, such as an individual person vs. the earth. But then a child riding in a car sees the world as moving, rather then himself, just as we see the sun as moving, rather then the earth.

What do you mean by "counter to the point of reference"?

The “equal and opposite reaction.”

otherwise you end up with this static fourth dimension of space that the point of reference is presumably moving through.


Who presumes what now?

Those who think of the frame of reference to motion as being at rest.

Remember, the frame of reference isn't some Newtonian universal field.


What frame of refernce?

This one;

“If it is approximately inertial, then the frame can be regarded as at rest.”

What?


When one isolates a particular motion as a reference, one does so as a mental exercise. It cannot possibly leave a "void in that larger equilibrium", because it has no efficacy in the real world. What you say here makes no sense.

I assumed you would understand that I was developing an abstraction of the “equal and opposite reaction.”

As QM points out, measuring something affects it, so measuring the rate of motion of the universe affects it equal to your measure.

We were talking about spacetime in relativity, remember? What does this have to do with anything?

The uncertainty principle is relativistic. Position is space and momentum is time.

No, I'm not. But you are putting undue emphasis on a process that may be used to measure time. Rotating clock hands are not necessary.

I suppose the rotating Earth isn’t either?

This is completely irrelevant to Relativity. It doesn't matter that it is pitch black in one part of the world, when at the same time day is breaking in another part. What matters is that clocks tick at the same rate in different frames.

Units of time vs. the process of time. The process is what exists, ie. the present. Units come and go.

We don't just associate the marking with decay. We associate the unit with any rate that is known.

And any unit of time goes from beginning to end, while the process continues.

As in any time-dependent process with a known period or rate.

What processes are not time dependant?

Let me help: It is the Earth that is rotating.
The acceleration can be measured.

We are in agreement on that, but it isn’t the point. The day is a creation of the fact that we subjectively exist at only one point on the surface of the earth.

You feel wrong. You have not presented any evidence as to why you think science overlooks any "equilibrium". Nor have you presented any specific cases in which this oversight has been been exhibited, nor have you even explained what the problem is, in your opinion. All you have done is assert that science is overlooking something.

Well, that's not very helpful!

Science currently proposes a theory of the universe in which 96% is invisible to everything but the math, because it chooses not to see any equilibrium between collapsing mass and expanding energy. So now that they have found old galaxies and huge galaxy structures at the very edge of the visible universe, the only response is to scratch their heads and wonder how such structures grew up so fast, not whether their model deserves to be questioned. Does the word “epicycle” come to mind?

Always. Do you care to do the same? And do you care to present actual evidence to back up your claims?

What would you allow as evidence? A personal lightning bolt? Sometimes lousy reception is due to a poorly tuned receiver, not a weak signal.

 

[brodix]

Straightening out the quote marks;

otherwise you end up with this static fourth dimension of space that the point of reference is presumably moving through.


Who presumes what now?

Those who think of the frame of reference to motion as being at rest.

Remember, the frame of reference isn't some Newtonian universal field.


What frame of refernce?

This one;

“If it is approximately inertial, then the frame can be regarded as at rest.”

What?


When one isolates a particular motion as a reference, one does so as a mental exercise. It cannot possibly leave a "void in that larger equilibrium", because it has no efficacy in the real world. What you say here makes no sense.

I assumed you would understand that I was developing an abstraction of the “equal and opposite reaction.”

As QM points out, measuring something affects it, so measuring the rate of motion of the universe affects it equal to your measure.

We were talking about spacetime in relativity, remember? What does this have to do with anything?

The uncertainty principle is relativistic. Position is space and momentum is time.

No, I'm not. But you are putting undue emphasis on a process that may be used to measure time. Rotating clock hands are not necessary.

I suppose the rotating Earth isn’t either?

This is completely irrelevant to Relativity. It doesn't matter that it is pitch black in one part of the world, when at the same time day is breaking in another part. What matters is that clocks tick at the same rate in different frames.

Units of time vs. the process of time. The process is what exists, ie. the present. Units come and go.

We don't just associate the marking with decay. We associate the unit with any rate that is known.

And any unit of time goes from beginning to end, while the process continues.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

A paper for Physics Forum

Mr Mattson and everyone interested,

Here is a paper I have prepared specially for this forum and a consequence of the dialogues I have had in it:

Is the Pendulum an Open Dynamic System?
Abstract.
In this paper the pendulum and its approximation factor, that can be validated
with what is observed in the reality "out there", is presented by using the
complex basic unit system concept based on Euler relation. This paper is a
result and a promise made in Physics Forum, in its sub forum Theory
Development, where I have been participating under the pseudonym Epsilon Pi.
Here I want to show that it is possible to cope the fundamental equations of
physics from a point of view or framework that includes the third, which means
mathematically speaking, by using complex numbers.
Comments: 7 pages, 1 figure, 1 table and equations.
The url is:
http://www.geocities.com/paterninaedgar/Papers/Pendulum.pdf
The next paper will be:
The Schrodinger's wave equation and the rationalization of duality

Thanks in advance for your time, comments or criticism.
Best regards
EP

You haven't presented another point of view!

You won't present arguments or evidence, and you won't answer questions. I can't read your mind.

 

[rob_we]

guys, what is time? If you consider time as a dimension containing momentary snaphots of mass (like in a film for examle) time is nothing but a movement or an expansion of a container carrying that mass maybe ;) www.donut-universe.info :)

 

[RAD4921]

Reading suggestion

I suggest the book, "The End of Time:The next revolution in physics" by physicist Julian Barbour.

 

[brodix]

rob we,

is that time, or is it information? Like pages of a book, they just sit there.

time is only a dimension if the frame of reference is at rest, but you are measuring motion and the point of reference consitutes an opposing frame of reference, just smaller, so the larger frame is not at rest, just moving proportionally slower in the opposing direction.
All of the various energies and particles that come together to form any particular event travel their own path through all other such forces. those which constitute you, as well as those which you move through. The only reality is this energy and the information it is currently manifesting. Time is simply a method of measuring these relationships. The reason it is so important to us is that it is the measure of the particular point of reference against its subjective context, which pretty much describes our intellectual perception of reality.

rad,

I suppose I only read several reviews and interviews when the book came out, but his seemed to be proposing time as a form of eternal dimension, with our place on it as a form of anthropocentrism, ie. we are here, or where ever, because that is just where we happen to be. As I've been trying to point out to Tom, the notion of time as a dimension rests on the assumption that the frame of reference is at rest and the problem with this is that it is completely counter to the concept of relativity. Since there is no universal frame of reference, we can only measure the motion of one point against the position of others. Since no positions are absolute, then the references are moving in the opposite direction.
Tom seems to be on leave...

 

[quantumdude]

Tom seems to be on leave...

Not on leave, just taking my time. I'm trying to figure out if I'm not understanding you, or if you're just nuts.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

That's what I like from you Mr Mattson, you take your time, and please do, nobody is in a hurry!, but why must we take always both ends? why do we not try to take an intermediate position?...not that you do not understand, not that we're nuts. If we talk to each in different languages it does not matter too much if we do not understand, except that we must learn a common language, must we not?... or at least that language must be used properly.

My best regards and thank you for your time!
EP
PS: and that's why we are here, don't we?

Not on leave, just taking my time. I'm trying to figure out if I'm not understanding you, or if you're just nuts.

 

[Antonio Lao]

of course logically 1D cannot exist in the first place,regardless of minuteness of depth.

Maybe, I think, you mean 1D cannot be separately visualized? What is visualizable is always 3D although even that we can at most only sees 2D at a time, one component of the 3D is always hidden from our view. But the moment when we start to move the hidden view starts to be seen. So we can say that motion is another way of viewing hidden dimensions.

But motion is relative (special and general relativity). So what is moving? Is space moving? Is time moving? Can a spacetime point moves? What is the absolute reference frame for these motions (of space, of time, of mass, of spacetime)? The same aged old question about the aether.

 

[brodix]

Tom,

Is that because the implications of my being right are not computable?

I realize that the scientific establishment would consider me as an archtypical crank, except for the detail that, while I do put a fair amount of personal brain time into aspects of this, rather then being the classical obsessive, I am too ADD to be able to put a lot of emotional commitment into it. It's just that it underlays the intellectual equilibrium of my personal philosophy. Whether you believe me or not, my attraction to it is its logic, so if you can provide me with an equally sensible explanation for why I am wrong, I would be disappointed, but understand that I would be more enlightened.

I would also say that in the various conversations I've had on this topic over the years, a fair number of people have understood the basic point I'm making, but many don't and of those, most would throw out a few terms as though I don't understand them and drop the subject, and then there have been a few who would take the time to pick at every loose end they could find, such as your self. It is these people who cause me to do the most introspection and consideration of these ideas and for that I am grateful.

 

[Chronos]

Tom,

Is that because the implications of my being right are not computable?

I realize that the scientific establishment would consider me as an archtypical crank, except for the detail that, while I do put a fair amount of personal brain time into aspects of this, rather then being the classical obsessive, I am too ADD to be able to put a lot of emotional commitment into it. It's just that it underlays the intellectual equilibrium of my personal philosophy. Whether you believe me or not, my attraction to it is its logic, so if you can provide me with an equally sensible explanation for why I am wrong, I would be disappointed, but understand that I would be more enlightened.

I would also say that in the various conversations I've had on this topic over the years, a fair number of people have understood the basic point I'm making, but many don't and of those, most would throw out a few terms as though I don't understand them and drop the subject, and then there have been a few who would take the time to pick at every loose end they could find, such as your self. It is these people who cause me to do the most introspection and consideration of these ideas and for that I am grateful.

Not computable = not reality. When observation and mathematical facts accumulate against you it is time to let go of your failed theories.

 

[brodix]

chronos,

Then I suppose you can explain why it makes sense to define motion in terms of a frame of reference at rest. The object in motion is its own frame of reference, so wouldn't they both be moving relative to one another?
So far as I can tell, through the many examples I've given, observation is in my favor.