david345

It is you who is misinterpreting a quote you found on a Wikipedia page. Are you trying to say time has not slowed for Krikalev? Are you saying 6pm in our time is also 6pm in Krikalev's time? Did you actually go to the Wikipedia page on time travel? The page uses this type of dilation as an example of of time travel into the future. The Wikipedia page on time travel: "This form of "travel into the future" is theoretically allowed (and has been demonstrated at very small time scales) using the following methods:[30] Using velocity-based time dilation under the theory of special relativity, for instance: Traveling at almost the speed of light to a distant star, then slowing down, turning around, and traveling at almost the speed of light back to Earth[59] (see the Twin paradox) Using gravitational time dilation under the theory of general relativity, for instance: Residing inside of a hollow, high-mass object; Residing just outside of the event horizon of a black hole, or sufficiently near an object whose mass or density causes the gravitational time dilation near it to be larger than the time dilation factor on Earth."

You can receive signals from anything in your past light cone. The moon 1 hr ago the moon 10 hrs ago. You can send signals to anything in your future light cone. You can not send signals to your past cone. You can not receive signals from your future cone. I asked you how is Krikalev standing on our planet. He is .02 sec behind us and according to you particles travel through time at the same speed. A second per second. Why hasn't earth vacated that position?

I am just trying to figure out what is changing? Obviously not time. Time does not exist. You say a clock changes. How did it change? Did it change it's color? You say a clock measures change. What change? A change in the weather? The change of a curve's slope? A change in hairstyle? You could say it measures a certain type of change. This type of change is ∆t. t being the fourth dimension. Einstein's time has been tested and it has lead to accurate predictions. Defining ∆t as ∆decay does not explain dilation. Yes it takes a ∆t to measure a ∆t. You can not replace t with ∆. ∆slope has nothing to do with time. You could say a particle is at x at t. This is an instant in time and not a ∆t. In quantum mechanics the wave collapse is instant. You could question our ability to measure an instant in time. This has to do with the uncertainty principle. It is not a result of time being change.

Astronaut Sergei Krikalev holds the world record for time travel. He traveled .02 seconds into the future. If you are correct then he doesn't exist in our present and we don't exist in his present. How did he land on earth? Earth and Krikalev exist at many presents.

What speed do objects move through time? One second per second? This is not a speed 1 sec\1 sec is equal to the number one. It is equal to pumpkin/pumpkin. I could say it takes one pumpkin to go from 0 pumpkins to 1 pumpkin. Therefore pumpkins move at a speed of one pumpkin per pumpkin. When pumpkin goes from 1 pumpkin to 2 pumpkin then pumpkin 1 must disappear from existence. Otherwise there would be a grotesque superposition of pumpkins. This is why we can't define speed as an object divided by itself. A better way of describing a particle moving through time is this: A particle is moving 100 miles per hour. It moves 100 miles of distance per hour of time. It moves 1 hour in time per 100 miles in distance. I use the word "move" but this is not accurate. It is not moving in space-time. A particle is not moving along its world line at a speed of 1 sec per sec. The accurate way to say it is at t0 the particle is at x0. At t1 the particle is at x1. The speed is ∆x\∆t. For a particle to move along the world line you would need a second time. You could say it moved x units along the world line during a period of x units in second time. This is why speed is d\t. A rate is a ratio between 2 different units. Your problem is you act like t=t and d. According to relativity time may sometimes seem like one or the other. It is not both.

You are saying the decision to kill is random. The decision is not determined by you. It is clear you are redefining free will in an attempt to save it. I could say Santa Claus=Dog. Dogs exist therefore Santa Claus exists.

I have come up with a proof to settle this once and for all. You say time flows at a speed of 1 sec per sec. I will now prove that if time moves one sec per sec then space must move 1 mile per mile. The problem is that you are treating time as both a temporal distance and a spatial distance. Speed=d/t you say d\t=t\t this would mean t=t AND t=d if t=d then d=t if d=t then d\t=d\d You say time moves one second per second. I could equivalently say space moves one mile per mile. It does not take one unit of time to go from (0,0,0,0) to (0,0,0,1). The difference between (0,0,0,0) and (0,0,0,1) is one unit of time. DISPUTE SETTLED.

A point can move fast between a and b or it can move slowly between a and b. How long does it take for the point to travel from t1 to t2. We will call this interval 1 sec. Your buddy Michel claimed it takes 1 sec. to travel between t1 and t2. What if the point travels at twice the speed? Does it still take the same time to travel from t1 to t2 even though the point is traveling twice as fast? The idea of flowing time is incoherent.

Is that your best refute?

It would take a unit of a second time to travel between t1 and t2. The difference between t1 and t2 is the distance the point must travel. We will call that distance 1 sec. How long does it take for a point to travel a distance of 1 sec. You can not use the distance a point must travel as the time it takes to travel that distance. That would be like saying I am moving at a speed of a mile per mile. It could take a long time for the point to travel 1 sec. It could travel this distance in a short time. This is why you would need a second time to tell how long it takes for the point to travel a distance of 1 sec on the time line. Even if it traveled 1 sec per 1 sec that would be one second of the new time to travel one second of the old time.

Imagine a point in (x,t). Imagine that point moving either along the t axis or along the world line. Does it travel from t1 to t2 instantly? Does it travel from w1 (world line point 1) to w2 instantly? If it traveled from t1 to t2 instantly then it would be at all points between at the same time. The same for w1 to w2. If it is not at all points between at the same time then it would take A PERIOD OF TIME to travel between t1 and t2, w1 and w2. You speak of travel between (0,0,0,0) and (0,0,0,1), and (0,0,0,0) and (1,0,0,0). Is this travel instantly or does it take time or is it neither instantly or takes time?

A computer can also do this. Program the computer to choose red if the machine chooses blue. If the machine chooses red then the computer chooses blue. This has nothing to do with free will. To have free will you must:1. Be the cause of your actions. 2. Be the cause of yourself. 3. Know what you are doing when you create yourself. If you are not the cause of your actions then why should you be blamed? If you are not the cause of yourself then how are you responsible for what you do? If I didn't build a car should I be responsible when it's brakes fail? If you didn't build yourself then either a. You act the way you were built to act or b. You don't act the way you were built to act. If b is correct then you still are not at fault for your actions because that can only be the case if 2 is true. Otherwise you act for no reason, random reasons, reasons other then you. 2 being true still would not be sufficient for free will to be true. You would have to know what you are doing when you create yourself. If you know nothing when you create yourself then you know nothing of the consequences of creating yourself one way or the other. You know nothing of the consequences of creating or not creating yourself. Eise, your comment is in direct contradiction with determinism. Determinism says you were caused by your parents who were caused by monkeys who were caused by evolution which was caused by etc...going back infinity. You claim you are the cause of your actions in spite of the fact you are not the cause of your actions. This is a contradiction. Are you saying the chain of causality ends with you? See the above part of this post for an answer to this question.

Some are under the impression that a particle moves along the time line. This would require a second time. It takes time for a particle to move along the distance line and it would take a second time for a particle to travel along the time line. How fast does a particle travel along the time line? A second per hour? Does one person's time move faster then another person's time? This happens in relativity. It is a result of the Lorentz contraction. It is not a result of one person flowing along the time line faster then another. What if there is a second time? Do things move along this time line? This would require a third time. If you have a signal that takes 10 days to get from earth to you. Otherwise you would have to time travel.

Are you asking about time travel? You could see your past by looking in the mirror. It takes time for the light to reach you. You could use a slower signal to see farther back.

when light travels through air or some other medium it travels slower. Refractive index equals c/v c is the speed in a vacuum v is the speed through a medium. Bats see with sonar which travels at the speed of sound.

The time would be different for each twin if they traveled at different speeds. The present for one twin would be the past for the other twin. If only the present exists then all clocks must be the same. Only one time would exist and that would be the present.

An electron doesn't grow like a circle as it gets farther in the past. If we went back in time people would not look like giant disks. The cone shows what part of the past can be observed. It takes time for light to travel from a to b.For one second in the past the sphere would have a radius of 186000 miles. The cone is a BOUNDARY. To see outside of the cone would require a signal traveling faster then light. As you go farther back the boundary grows. The particles do not grow. Traveling backwards in time would mean your worm makes a u turn. You are still moving foward in your time but your time is moving in the opposite direction of everyone else's time. Imagine a 2d graph where y is the time axis and x is the distance axis. Draw a upside down V. This would be a point that is traveling forward in time and then reverses it's direction in time. If you are observing this and you don't reverse your direction in time you could mistake this with two particles coming together and then disappearing when they meet. This is how Feynman describes matter and antimatter annihilating each other. An electron emits two photons. Instead of it recoiling the opposite direction in space it recoils the opposite direction in time. We reverse the arrow of time on the backwards traveling electron. When we do this we must also reverse its charge, spin, and matter antimatter classification. I said the twin paradox shows the past is not gone. When twins travel at different speeds there clocks get out of sync. What appears simultaneously to one would happen at different times for the other. 5 o'clock for one would be 4 o'clock for the other. If only the present exists then at 5 o'clock only one twin could exist. The other is at 4 o'clock and 4 o'clock no longer exists.

The cone is the parts of the past that are observable by light. The question is if you traveled into the past would you see a younger version of yourself? If you do then the past is still there. If you don't then the past is gone. The twin paradox seems to disagree with the idea that the past is gone. Think of a 2d space-time graph. A moving point is represented by a motionless line.

It appears that relativity says we have block time. A 3d moving point is a 4d "motionless" world line. The universe is a 4d fixed "block". We think we are moving but we are just a 4d space-time worm. We are a picture fooled into thinking we are a motion picture. The past is still there and it is next to us in the direction of time. Karl Popper once called Einstein "Parmenides" after Einstein admitted this was his view of the universe. Quantum mechanics has raised doubt's about relativity. The block universe may not be set in stone.

With an ac circuit the capacitor will act like a resistor. If the circuit has only a resistor then current is l=E/R. If it has only a capacitor then I=E/Xc. Xc is capacitive reactance Xc=1/(2pifc). Pi is the number. F is frequency. C is capacitance. Xc is measured in ohms just like resistance. If there is a resistor and capacitor in series then I = E/Z. Z is impedance. Z= sqrt ( R^2+Xc^2). With a dc circuit when the capacitor is charged current flow stops. The resistance would be that of the dielectric between the plates. With enough voltage you could short the capacitor. Current would flow through the shorted capacitor and the shorted capacitor would have some resistance.