russ_watters said:
It isn't circular reasoning. You make predictions and the predictions either come true or they don't. When the predictions come true, the theory is affirmed, when they don't, the theory is falsified.
In the case of our concept of time, multiple independent meathods of measuring time -that didn't even exist when Einstein formulated his theories - agree with the theory to an extrordinary level of precision. This implies only two possible conclusions.
1. Our theory of what time is/how time works is correct.
2. Multiple experiments measuring completely different physical processes have produced results that fit with relativity but actually are measuring an different effect.
3. Through an extrordinary coincidence, multiple experiments have produced erroneous results that just so happen to match the theory.
Possibility #2 is possible, but unlikely due to just how different the various experiments are from each other. Really, what this would imply is that Relativity is very close to correct but not quite correct - which would basically come down to hairsplitting.
Possibility #3 is much too far fetched to be taken seriously. There are lots of different types of clocks and most have very well understood error mechanisms. Even mechanical clocks such as pendulum clocks - you can predict how they will behave in a differing gravitational field. And different clocks will have different error sources and error amounts. But the "clocks" used to test Relativity have no known errors that could account for the predictions of Relativity.
...There is also the issue of the lack of absolute speed making it impossible to pin down a "real" speed of a clock: a clock can simultaneously have an infinite number of possible physical speeds with respect to an infinite number of different reference frames and there can be an infinite number of different dilations between these frames. So you can't really say that speed affects clocks because clocks have only one "speed" that they care about: their own speed of zero with respect to themselves.
Could there be a fourth posibility? That the physical effect of the environment impacts on the microwave emissions of electrons equally for all atoms, which in turn will affect all the time keeping devices in the exact same manner?
There could of course be other explanations, but for now they are not really necessary.
russ_watters said:
That is an incorrect characterization. Time is not measured against itself any more than a meter stick is measured against itself. Physical lengths are measured with meter sticks: time is measured with clocks.
This isn't the case though, so restating it does not add any credence to the assertion. The thing is, we can trace the measurement of a metre back to an arbitrary choice:
wikipedia said:
In 1670, Gabriel Mouton, a French abbot and scientist, proposed a decimal system of measurement based on the circumference of the Earth. His suggestion was a unit, milliare, that was defined as a minute of arc along a meridian. He then suggested a system of sub-units, dividing successively by factors of ten into the centuria, decuria, virga, virgula, decima, centesima, and millesima.
Now it has evolved from there, but you get the point. So when we talk about a metre, we are actually talking about the comparison against "a minute of arc along a meridian" of the Earths circumference. But that in itself is a completely arbitrary decision. Just like the measurement of a yard, which was equally taken from a completely arbitrary object. So any talk of yards is to compare something to whatever it was that was taken as the original measurement.
wikipedia said:
Historical origin
The yard derives its name from the word for a straight branch or rod,[3] although the precise origin of the measure is not definitely known. Some believe it derived from the double cubit, or that it originated from cubic measure, others from its near equivalents, like the length of a stride or pace. One postulate was that the yard was derived from the girth of a person's waist, while another claim held that the measure was invented by Henry I of England as being the distance between the tip of his nose and the end of his thumb.[4] It was first defined in law by Edward I of England in 1305,[5][6][7] and again by Edward III of England in 1353.[8]
Following the destruction of the British Standard Yard in the 1834 fire at the Palace of Westminster, consideration was given to a reproduceable standard should the physical measure be lost again. The Weights and Measures Act 1855 Act was passed defining the standard yard based upon the length of a seconds pendulum.[9] This is 39.1392 inches, and can be derived from the number of beats (86,400) between two meridians of the sun. The 36-inch yard was defined accordingly. The temperature compensated pendulum was to be held in a vacuum at sea level in Greenwich, London to give the length of the standard yard.[10] However, a new physical Imperial Standard Yard was authorised by the Weights and Measures Act 1878,[11] and was the legal standard in the United Kingdom until 1964.
So for example, if we talk about the Earth's circumference in metres, it is somewhat circular in reasoing, because the distance of a metre was derived from the circumference of the earth.
Equally, a clock doesn't actually measure time. Older clocks were used to measure the rotation of the Earth (or thereabouts). The current atomic clocks measure microwave emissions, of changing electrons. These have been, arbitrarily taken to be the measurements of time. Time itself, like distance, is the measurement of an imaginary line between two points. This line does not exist in reality, it doesn't need to be measured as the objects (with respect to distance) can exist without the measurement of the imaginary line.
Time on the other hand does indeed measure the change in an object, be that a change in location, or a change in it's physical make-up. Either way, it is measured against itself. Or rather, details about the object are recorded, and they are compared against the same object at an arbitrary measure of distance along an imaginary timeline. The details that are recorded, are the past details of the object, which no longer accord with reality. The change in state or location of the object is measured against the arbitrary microwave emissions of changing electrons.
This means that if the case were to be stated correctly, the rate of change would be xunits of measurement e.g. 2metres per number of emissions from the changing electrons. As this is a bit of a mouthful, it is translated into a more meaningful term, that has been with humanity for quite some time e.g nano-seconds (or whatever the corresponding measurement is). This in itself is merely a comparison agains the degree of rotation of the earth, relative to its previous position.
russ_watters said:
You have a very odd and incorrect view of what it means for a position to exist. In any case, since you just argued that "past locations" don't exist, then to be internally consistent, you would need to discard the concept of distance.
You'll have to fogive the poor explanation, however this cannot be taken as an indication of my understanding, rather my ability to translate my understanding into meaningful scientific terms. This is in part down to my lack of formal scientific training. However, knowledge of terms does not equate to understanding. If you could perhaps explain what it means for a potision to exist, then you may provide me with the correct terms (more than likely after a few questions) and then I can attempt to translate it into more meaningful terms for yourself.
I must re-iterate however, that I do not suggest that time be done away with. Indeed it is a very useful measurement, just as distance is a very useful measurement. What I do suggest is that how we view time be questioned, to the extent that we view it as part of "the fabric of reality", as something that exerts influence over bodies within a system, or indeed as something that can be warped and manipulated, be discarded.
Also, with regard to the comparison with distance. Distance is actually a measurement of a line between two separate points, as opposed to something being measured against itself. While the distance that an object travels, may appear as thought its present position is measured against its past position, it is actually those two positions represented by points, and the line between them that is measured.
You are correct however, that both time and distance should be treated in the same manner, as units of measurement (arbitrarily derived) as opposed to being the measurement of something else. Or if they are to be seen as the measurement of something else, then the nature of the thing that they are actually measuring should be noted. With regard to time, and in particular, the atomic clock, time should be recognised as the measurement of the microwave emissions of a changing electron, relative to the degree of rotation of the Earth (that is assuming that the number of emissions per second is what is taken as the unit of measurement).
russ_watters said:
Any any case, that's all nonsense so it is best not to dwell on it. It seems you've made a decision here that you just plain don't want to accept what Relativity says. If you won't take experiments at face value, there may not be much left to discuss.
Honestly, I didn't start out with this decision. I operated on the exact same assumptions about time. However, through exposure to a wide range of information, I was lead to question those assumptions. That questioning continues, however the evidence has mounted to the extent that I am challenging the information that I have come to believe is correct, mainly through discussion with various people, reading material, and educating myself as best as possible on the issue. Instead of accepting that it is true and operating from that axiom, I want to get the opinions of people who would be better versed in the sciences than I.
It is not that I don't want to accept what relativity says, indeed I don't doubt its application and some of the results that verify part of the theory. I do strongly believe that the assumptions, not only of physical theories, but also of people and mankind, need to be questioned.
I will take the results at face value, just as I will take the as yet unproven postulations at face value. I will also take the resulting inferences from Quantum Mechanics at face value, namely, the unobserved Quarks, the as of yet unproven String Theory, but most notably the postulation of parallell universes. These should certainly be taken as a potential warning signal (perhaps along with Dark Matter, Dark Energy and by definition, unobservable black holes), or at the very least, as an act of prudence, food for the contemplation of the base assumptions of the theory.
However, just as I will take all of those factors at face value, you must also hold yourself to the same scientific principles and consider the overriding logic. The logic alone, highlights the need for the reconsideration of the assumptions.
This will not invalidate the theory, certainly not its usefulness. Indeed it will remain a very useful principle for the measurement of objects relative to each other. I would however question its application to the absolute.
