owl

I'll start here and then come back to more recent replies: swansont: Do you mean like challenging the leap from particle accelerator verification of length contraction (between end-points of subatomic particle locations at near lightspeed) to relativity's claim that a meter rod or an AU contracts when measured from a near 'C' fly-by frame of reference? Still seems like a reasonable challenge to me. Particle accelerator results are from quite an extreme arena of experimental measurement as micro-scale size and high velocity. Transference to large scale is not a given, as already acknowledged here by DrRocket. And, while on the subject, I will try to answer what I mean by at- rest frames of reference being "preferred" over those traveling near 'C' relative to what is being measured (replying to recent criticism from others in other posts.) We can all verify how long a meter stick is when holding it in our hands (at rest frame with the stick.) Seems obvious that this is the accurate standard of measure, which is one ten millionth of the earth surface distance from equator to pole (how it was derived.) But relativity claims that there is no preferred frame of reference, so that a near 'C' fly-by measurement of the same stick may see it as a tenth of a meter. My claim is that the latter is distorted by the extreme velocity frame from which it is measured, and that the former is the accurate measure. Further, I don't think that this argument makes me a "crackpot" as swansont has called me (or my argument, anyway.) As for the different muon lifespans as an argument for time dilation and length contraction... I hope that Cap 'n R will address my reply, as it was his example. You, swansont, said: I don't dispute that "They live longer when moving fast." (I'm pretty sure that high speed space travelers do too.) But I will need to review what you call "Galilean rules" before a specific reply. Meanwhile, "living longer" does not mean that "time" has expanded around them during their journey or that the distance they traveled got shorter just because they went further than expected. (The ontological perspective.) I'll have to get back to further replies later.

For openers, how I justified a preferred frame of reference in my reply post you dismissed as "baloney" without even the courtesy of being specific as to what made it baloney. (Argument by "smear" tactic is no argument.) Since Cap 'n R granted that earth does not move closer to sun when a traveler measures the distance as contracted to 1/8 AU and his travel time reduced to 1 minute (by his slowed-down clock) rather than the 8 it takes sunlight to reach earth, I thought this was a clear distinction between "actual" earth-sun distance and the near-C traveler's measurement of the distance. (Huh?) It seemed off-the-wall and irrelevant to the above argument. I obviously missed the significance of your point. My verification would be the same as Newton and his apple falling from a tree... what goes up will also come down in my living room. (??) Plus, I stick to the floor like everyone else rather than levitating. Yes, clearly I have not, as I already said, been able to "pretend" that a loaf of raisin bread is a 2-D object representing 3-D space. Maybe ontology is clouding my judgment, because, again, I don't see how the metaphor applies to what we call space and the stuff (raisins) in it... i.e., what we would "actually" be "slicing" and how that would alter the distances between objects. Also, as you know, the ontological status of "time" is the subject of this thread, and one camp in that argument asserts that it is simply event duration of physical processes rather having properties of its own as a component in a malleable medium, "spacetime." So making the length of the loaf represent time makes no more sense to me than making a loaf a bread a 2-D object, a plane with no thickness to "slice." Cap 'n R: As I understand it, incoming naturally occurring muons have a much longer "lifespan" than those observed in particle accelerators. (Am I right?) The difference is attributed to "time dilation." Correct? But if time is event duration of physical processes (my "EDPP"), and the physical process of decay for the former muons takes longer than their lab cousins, how does this verify "time" as an entity which expands ("dilates"), and how does this verify their distance traveled through the atmosphere as "contracted?" Finally, how come, if length contraction "falls out" from "incredibly well tested" (if indirect) experimental evidence, it can not be directly observed in contracted rods and AU lengths? You did agree, did you not, that earth does not "actually" move to 1/8 AU from the sun when so measured by that voyager traveling at near C?

A lot of the dialogue in this thread has already been covered in my old thread, "Another Far Out Cosmology" in the Speculations section, pg 3. So, rather than repeating a lot of what I have already said, I hope it is OK to quote from selected relevant posts there. But I will start with csmyth's reply to me in this thread: csmyth3025: True, we don't know, but more matter is being discovered all the time, not even counting whatever "dark matter" is supposed to be. So the jury is out on whether it is an oscillating, Bang/Crunch cycle or bang to entropy, and it all just finally dissipates. (Again, if the following transcription is out of line, please advise. Just trying to avoid endless repetition.) From "another far out cosmology' (all below); 4/16, my post 19: One would be a stupid fool to believe the earth to be the center of the universe, as I explained in detail in the cosmology discussion as it was still in the old thread about the end of space. ... I had earth and our visible cosmos deep in the membrane thickness of a way larger scale "balloon" model in that context. ... Who says that gravity is not a constant (ed:continual) force ever since the bang or bangs, just diminished in force with more distance (the square of the distance, as I understand it) ad infinitum. There is no waiting while "gravity waves" reach us... For example, the gravitational pull between earth (and other planets) and the sun is steady. No delays waiting for it to reach us just because it travels at light speed, if it does...which seems well established. From 4/18, post 24: What you never understood about that model was the scale of the whole expanding balloon with a thick skin and buried deep within that skin is the "atom" of our solar system (part of a molecule/ galaxy of "rubber".) (Edited emphasis.) From my post 30: The inflating balloon model is well worn in cosmology. My version adds some details of scale like a way more vast "balloon" than our little local environment...visibility limit... deep within the membrane. Probably never verifiable or falsifiable... but it's speculative. and; I do remain open to reasonable falsification of the balloon model and the present multiple bangs and crunches model... I'll still be pursuing how batches of merged supermassive black holes beyond our cosmic horizon, scattered all around our visible cosmos, still acts like a big sphere around our smaller sphere (as far as we can see.) (Ed: See Spyman's links and comments on the shell theorem of gravity in that thread.) Here is the address of the The Balloon Analogy In Cosmology I called "well worn" though I disagree with its assumptions* as evident in my presentation. http://www.astro.ucl...t/balloon0.html From post 32: I see cosmos expanding into space beyond what we can see, though not "empty" where more stuff might exist. "...beyond the universe" is a silly phrase, since the universe must be all there is, known and unknown. (Edited emphasis.) I see the Big Bang locus at the center of the balloon in the very large scale model and the multiple bangs and crunches as happening on the smaller scale within the "balloon membrane" as already presented in detail. Btw, my 'model' is 3-D. A fourth spacial dimension is an abstraction with no referent in the real cosmos, in my opinion. From post 34: I understand gravity to be constant (ed: rather continuous, as it does fluctuate with, for instance, depleting sun mass over time or black holes gaining mass)...between all masses, since the "bang" and still (ed: pulling among all masses, and without a distance limit, as per the *universal* law of gravity.) From post 45: Here is a relevant piece from a Kelley Ross paper I've been studying in depth for the dialogue in the "Is Space Infinite" thread: Ross quotes Scientific American, "Is Space Finite?" [Jean-Pierre Luminet, Glenn D. Starkman, & Jeffrey R. Weeks, April 1999, pp. 90-97]: And finally, from post 47: And of course if many Bangs happen all over the universe, not from the same epicenter, all bets are off as to overall shape of "all there is."

Well, regarding length contraction, I asked the forum for any experimental evidence that the particle accelerator results on micro-subatomic scale apply to macro-scale lengths like earth diameter and earth-sun distance. Nothing but more references to high speed measurements showing shorter distance and elapsed travel time (time dilation) ignoring what the results would be in the "real world" if the AU were, say, 1/8 the "standard AU measure" from an at-rest frame. Same with the obvious "rod in the hand" comments in favor of at rest frame being the reality check on near-C fly-by measures which would, theoretically claim that the rod contracted to a fraction of the at-rest frame of measurement. Same with the ontology of time. No comment on the "clocks run slower at near-C" premise as a challenge to "time dilation"... with no consensus on what time is in the first place. (See my EDPP definition.) Is the "photon's" alleged perspective, no elapsed travel time, just as "correct" as the actual 8+ minutes required for sunlight to travel to earth? No, it is still an 8+ minute trip for light in the "real world." You (moderators/admin) treat science (relativity) like a dogmatic belief which tolerates no dissent. You guys even admitted that there is no confirmation of length contraction on everyday observable scale, yet you dogmatically insist on its Truth and ridicule me for arguing against time dilation and length contraction. Edit: Oopse! I just made a foolish mistake, thinking the thread had just been moved to "Speculations"... just edited for inappropriate remarks about that. I usually just go to 'my content' without thinking about what section this thread is in. Sorry. However, it should be moved to the philosophy section where ontology belongs as a part of the philosophy of science. (Would you please?) I'm still backtracking to reply to the opening comments in Cap 'n R's last post. I can't seem to "pretend" that a 3-D object is "a representation of two-dimensional space..." I see space as 3-D volume, while 2-D is confined to a plane. But I get the gist of the raisins in specific locations in the loaf if the loaf is a 3-D object representing space. You can slice the loaf any way you want and scatter the pieces around, and then claim that the distances between raisins has changed, which, of course it has with the loaf all over the table. But then we still have to apply the metaphor to objects (raisins) in space as observed in the real world. You can not slice up space, and move the pieces (and their contents) around, creating new distances between the objects, because space is the emptiness in which objects exist (as I see it.) Same with the earth to sun traveler you spoke of. You agreed that his perspective/measurements do not make earth move closer to sun, so how does the above illustration apply to what we can actually observe about objects in space? I honestly don't see how it is useful for the reasons stated above.

I've only read through page three, but here are my two cents so far: DrRocket: Remember? Says who? Define “space.” What is exploding?... and still expanding? How is space different from empty volume? csmyth3025: Me too. A curved surface (of a balloon) occupies 3-D space. All this assumes that space is something that has the property of shape. DrRocket: If we allow, just for a thought-experiment-moment, that space is just empty volume (contrary to all of the above,) then “it” has no shape, even though all the cosmic stuff *in space* is distributed in various possible ways. Then, without any assumptions about intrinsic vs extrinsic curvature, and without the leap into non-Euclidean geometry/cosmology, we can speak of #2 above as good ol’ Euclidean 3-D space with no “shape." How all cosmic “stuff” (in space) is distributed is another *matter.* insane_alien: We have been here before in the “Is the universe infinite?” thread. If space is not a thing but rather just empty volume, then beyond all the “stuff”, seen and beyond, is... more empty space... no “wall” or boundary... which simply begs the question, ... and what beyond that? If “nothing” that means more empty space... whether or not there is any “stuff” out there.

Cap ‘n R: I have. And, ontologically speaking, I find the relativity dictum that all distance is relative to measurement from various frames of reference “out of touch” with the reality that earth-sun distance does not actually lengthen or shorten with each variation in frame of reference from which it is observed/measure... to which I think you agreed in spite of your insistence that 'for a photon' or 'for the high speed traveler' the measured elapsed time and distance are drastically different from what I am calling the actual time and distance... That, contrary to relativity theory, there is a preferred frame of reference... at rest relative to that which is being measured. "Preferred" because of the "reality check" that there are no changes in global temperature or gravity with each high speed fly by "seeing" a way shorter distance between the bodies. But the distance does not actually shorten from the standard one AU or about 150,000,000 km to 21,400,000km, and he does not travel the actual 150,000,000 km in “just over a minute” even though his clock and his own physical processes have slowed down so much that it recorded that only a minute or so had passed and his frame of reference measured the shorter distance. This is the ontology of the situation. His observation and measurement does not make the actual distance shorter (as “length contraction” would have it) or the actual elapsed time diminish from 8+ to 1+ minutes... just because that is what the traveler and his clock experience/measure. A slow-ticking clock (and slower physical aging process) at near C velocity does "make time slow down," as relativity (time dilation) would have it. And I have already belabored the argument that actual earth-sun distance does not "contract" for the obvious reasons given, even though "for the traveler," it looks that way. Please do not continue to mistake disagreement for ignorance of relativity. What's this... the thread is banished to the realm of pseudoscience because my ontology questions the reality of time dilation and length contraction. Very open-minded of Y'all!

Cap ‘n R: Different perspectives (frames of reference) make distance change? How is this different from measurements from different perspectives making distance change? Either way, do you believe that a near light speed frame of reference viewing (measuring) earth and getting half its well known and published diameter means that earth has actually “contracted” to half-size during that observation/measurement period? Say it ain’t so! Or at least answer my above objections to such variations in earth diameter and AU length/distance. Cap 'n R: So, even though it takes light eight minutes to travel the distance, someone flying at near light speed but less than C, as required by physics, will find the distance (8 light minutes) and travel time (eight minutes) to "contract" to less than eight light minutes of length and less than 8 minutes of time? I get that his clock will not show 8 minutes for the journey... because his clock will have slowed down! Remarkable that the traveler going less than C can cover the standard one AU or 8 light minutes (length) in less time that light itself! Or maybe there ARE preferred frames of reference!... like at rest relative to the length being measured. Same for the ubiquitous “rod.” The one in hand is a preferred frame of reference (measuring tape in the other hand) over the near-light-speed fly by shot at it. (Seems a reasonable hypothesis to me.) Whoops! Length contraction is not time ontology... or is it?... considering the time component of high velocity. A bit tricky to sort out, topic wise. rigney: No apology necessary for my part. I welcome your comments. Seems like more of a policy to intimidate dissent from mainstream relativity theory. In that case, anyone who agrees with me will be either banned or told to start their own thread. Kind of like breaking up the minority argument so we can not support each other in a coherent way (via continuity in the same thread.) But that is just "my perspective."

rigney: What do you mean by, “distance is always a positive?” (It is what it is, whatever its end points in the cosmos... Earth to Sun, Earth diameter,... from here to Andromeda...) But particle accelerators seem to make these sub-atomic energy levels ("particles") do strange things. Then physicists extrapolate to assume significance beyond that micro-level of study... and we have intelligent scientists believing that all these cosmic distances vary with measurement. Seems like a very homo-sapient-centric view of the cosmos to me. But I am "waxing philosophical" and this is the "specualtions" department, so i am probably off topic. (We certainly would not want that to continue!) I agree with how time is just a tool, a convention, an agreement about process duration and how to label it in standardized units. It's mostly for figuring velocities and human activity schedules ... distances traveled over whatever time span or time of day for us activity coordination worldwide. But whether it is applied to natural cosmic processes or sending vehicles into orbit or deep space, it has been over-rated as something that itself “expands”... the meaning of dilation. Interrupted. Back later. I was just gettinj started on replies.

Would someone please address my replies to the quoted material on length contraction in my last post. Telling me that I need to understand it better does not help when I give it my best shot and no one answers. I am not a mathematician, but I am seriously trying to understand how length contraction comes out of the particle accelerator and applies to earth's diameter and our standard astronomical unit. If those lengths really "contracted," how is it that earth's diameter, earth itself does not shrink, and we do not actually get closer to the sun. I thought these were fair question deserving more than implied ridicule for answers (and another demerit in the popularity contest department.) As an aside, I'd like to put the exchange with swansont in that post to rest. swansont Like this: I didn’t ask, “What can we point to and say, ‘this measures time’?... to which “a clock” would have been an obvious answer (though it doesn't address what time is. I asked, “What can we point to and say, ‘this is time’?, to which you replied with a complete sentence “A clock.”, meaning a clock is time. You then added that it measures time, but I was asking, as always “what is time?” I am really picky about accurate use of language ... to say what we mean and mean what we say. (Which is why I contantly bitch about the use of "time dilation" without any consensus on what time is.... i.e., just that, whatever it is, it "dilates." This is all part of my ongoing inquiry into what we mean when we say, “time.” Yes. But if it is just "Event Duration of Physical Processes" (my coined acronym for time, EDPP) then slowing down of physical processes is the empirical observation and does not fall into the pit of "time" reification, i.e., that "it dilates." OK? rigney: This just adds to the confusion about time in my opinion. Rather, the "tick" is one instant (now, the present, with no "duration"), and the "tock" is another instant with no "duration." In between the tick and the tock is a segment of event duration which the clock measures and which we call time.

swansont: From the Wikipedia link provided by Cap ’n R above: It is the leap from high speed particle physics on micro-scale to astronomical scale length/distance that has not been experimentally verified. Any astronomy site will verify one AU as a constant (averaging the elliptical variation in distance,) and any earth-science site will verify the constant earth diameter (neglecting any increase in the trivial bulge at the equator over eons of centripetal force from spinning.) Further, if earth-sun distance contracted significantly, a significant increase in global temperature would occur as a result. No such result has been measured. (No one attributes global warming to such “length contraction.”) Lack of such a drastic change is verification of my null hypothesis (that no such contraction occurs.) Lack of catastrophic gravitational changes from closer proximity to the sun constitutes the same kind of verification... no contraction of the one AU length. continuing with the Wikipedia link: Again this is all in the arena of high speed particle physics, which has not been experimentally verified as applicable to the solar system scale of length/distance as the basis for my challenge. Even if a near-light-speed fly-by of our solar system measured the distance as half the standard AU (as a verification of SR,) this would not mean that earth actually moved to half the present distance to the sun (as verified above.) Likewise earth itself would not shrink to half its size because of a similar measurement. Verification is self evident by any definition of "reality," but, if required, I would site "Google Earth" photos, which never show such a shrunken earth. So the word “real” as used in the Wiki quote above must also apply to “...error free measurements of the (simultaneous) positions of the object's endpoints”... on solar system scale, in which the “object” is either one AU (end points being sun and earth) or earth scale, the end points being the extremes of its diameter . Now to the following exchange with swansont: me: "A clock is time?" swansont: "Nope, didn't say that." Replay: Me:” what can we ‘point to and say,’ this is time?” You: "A clock. It measures time." You said we can point to a clock and say that this is time, a direct answer to my question. (I know this is picky but literal.)

Cap ‘n Refsmmat: Has anyone ever experimentally verified the decrease in distance from earth to sun (as measured by extreme velocity fly-by frames of reference) by an obvious reality check: the increased radiation/heat on earth as it gets much closer to the sun? (Rhetorical question.) Earth does not actually get closer to sun as these thought experiments from relativity and all the precise math (from extreme frames of reference) would have us believe. (Even tho C is constant. No more lectures on SR, please. I have actually studied it in depth.) No, Cap ‘n. I disagree. We would fry if we got that much closer to our sun. It simply is not true. Measurement does not make the distance change! PS:Earth does not grow and shrink in diameter either, regardless of the 'science myth' of length contraction.

swansont: I’m not being obscure or cryptic about the obvious meaning of event duration. Pick a physical process (“any physical process”, as a card shark would say.) Pick any instant, “now.” Wait awhile. Pick another instant,” now.” Use a stopwatch if you like. The duration of the event you chose to monitor is the “time” between the clicks or the two instants of “now.” Note: We did not create something, “time” with this activity. We just measured the duration between two instants while observing a physical process. Me:” what can we ‘point to and say,’ this is time?” You: A clock is time? “That which is measured” simply substitutes “that” for “time,” which is not a definition of time. In contrast, we all know what the words four, legs, canine, and mammal denote “in the real world,” (where words have meaning in common experience) and they are some of the actual properties of, and a partial but meaningful definition of “dog.” No, but this thread is on the ontology of time. Let me remind you of the distinction made by Kelley Ross in his frequently quoted (by me) paper... that the math does not provide the meaning. I’ll find the exact quote again if you like. So maybe some physicists don’t care what time is as long as the math of relativity works out (which of course it does.) It is the “business” of ontology to care what we mean when we say, “time.” Just to be sure, you believe that earth’s diameter contracts and expands and that the one astronomical unit between earth and sun expands and contracts with measurement from different frames of reference? Length is earth’s diameter in the first case and earth to sun distance in the second. Seems obvious, but you asked. Why do you call my long standing interest in what time actually is an obsession? md65536 I understand that earth’s orbit is not a perfect circle and that therefore the distance varies with the irregularity of the ellipse. My point is that various measurements of the average distance (one AU) does not make earth move closer to or further away from the sun. md: Don’t take it personally. This is not a social network site (in spite of popularity rating, which does not belong in a serious science forum.) Impersonal science should prevail, even in questioning/challenging of mainstream science. Try replying to my point by comparing what “aurameters” claim to measure (subtle energy emanations of living things) to what clocks claim to measure... the ever elusive “time.”

md65536: The point of this thread is to “evaluate” what time is in the real world, if anything more than the concept of event duration for any and all physical processes. The latter can speed up and slow down for a variety of reasons without making time itself into something that speeds up or slows down. Time is not defined at all by the “what clocks measure” dodge, and the variability of the latter is the opposite of “consistent.” “Real world observations” are physical processes with variable duration in different circumstances. Finally, I would like to put the "aurameter" example in honest perspective: Those who claim that living things have detectable energy fields beyond their physical boundaries are not necessarily all new-age dingbats, and they claim to have developed instruments (aurameters) to detect these energy levels on very subtle levels. (I was baiting the forum with this example to see if anyone actually knew anything about this field, or if blind prejudice would prevail. It did.) It is more likely, I think (being open minded as I am) that these “meters” are measuring actual ( though quite weak) energy fields than that clocks are measuring some real (whatever) “time” as a “thing” in the broadest sense besides “Event Duration of Physical Processes.” I will hereafter use the acronym EDPP to designate what I mean by “time.”

swansont: The ontology of time (what is it?) is still not a straw man. If it is not an entity but it is not "nothing," (the process of eliminating what it is not), we still have not answered "what is it?" And, again, how is this different than the bogus tautology defining "the aura" as "that which aurameters measure? How is time more than the duration of physical events? What slows down besides the duration of physical processes slowing down, say in higher gravity fields or higher velocities? Do you agree with the following Lisa Zyga quote from the Psyorg.com link: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html swansont: So, if we can not include the properties of time or a description of it in a definition (like a dog is a four-legged canine mammal... etc), what can we "point to and say," this is time? What is wrong, if anything, with the Zyga quote above on time? We all get that velocity and gravity effect clocks' ticking rates, and that we call this effect "time dilation"... as distinct from other things we can do to clocks to slow them down. Yet we don't seem to know what it is that is said to "dilate" besides the obvious fact that clocks slow down. What about the Sorli quote from the Zyga article?: And I've been persistent in my argument against the relativity dictum that everything is relative to measurement. A couple of my recent statements in this regard: The same ontology applies to "length contraction" in reply to your, " Length is what is measured by a meter stick" (which is supposed to vary with different frames of reference.) I asked (again) recently if anyone actually believes that earth's diameter or earth-sun distance actually varies with different frames of reference from which they are measured. Apparently no one wants to look foolish enough to affirm contraction/expansion of that diameter or the one AU distance, but relativity's "length contraction" insists on their variability.

A link provided by notimeforspacetime in the Ontology of Time thread (Speculations) has prompted a return to this thread. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html Here a some interesting quotes from a paper by Lisa Zyga (my bold): Sorli:

I said: ... and Cap ‘n R replied: I was not quoting you but making a general summary statement. It would have been more clear if i had said “If time and space are not entities...” then how did “spacetime” become a malleable medium, curved by the gravity of mass? (More on this in my Ontology of Spacetime thread, see below.) Also, again (see yesterday's post), how does M-theory qualify as science by your comments yesterday and above? swansont said: So nothing is really “dilating” or expanding in “time diloation” but we speak as if there is out of tradition or group habit rather than being more precise in describing what we observe... which is clocks slowing down? swansont: I don’t understand this at all. Do they not routinely make very precise adjustments to GPS clocks (which vary in ticking rate) to yield precise positioning information? Yes, a wind-up clock submerged in water will slow down a lot, and no one would call it time dilation, but saying “time dilates” under other familiar conditions (changes in gravity field, velocity, etc.) does mean that something “time” is changing, not just the “ticking” rates of clocks? If there is a difference, what is it? To the conversation with Iggy: Me: "So defining time with a tautology is no problem for science." Iggy: Wikipedia: In the pseudo-"definition" of time as "that which clocks measure," "time=that" does not define time or "provide clarity" on what it is. On space... brought up here by Iggy with his Einstein quote on it... I said: Iggy replied: Huh? (Seems like a lot of "bull" to me. ) Your Einstein quote said, again paraphrasing, that if all matter disappeared then all space and time would also disappear. I agreed with the 'time' part. Nothing moving... no time. I challenged the 'space' part. The disappearance of all matter would leave nothing... = empty space, call it what you will. (I did invite synonyms.) I will reply and comment on the link provided above by notimeforspacetime, in the Ontology of Spacetime thread in the Philosophy section.

So defining time with a tautology is no problem for science. Pseudoscience can use the same argument for the existence and properties of "the human aura" as "that which aurameters measure." None of the varieties of "strings" nor the eleven-dimensional membrane made of them in M-theory are "... directly observable and cannot be known through empirical observations, so it has no place in science" either? Wouldn't "clock variability" be a more accurate label for what we observe than the ever elusive "time?" To my: ... md65536 replied: My point was that physical processes even in “galaxies far, far away” "take time to happen” (event duration) naturally, objectively, in the real world regardless of “measurement” by any definition. Cap ‘n R: Me: Summary: Time and space are not entities but rather just artifacts of measurement. So, how is it that when these two non-entities are combined into “space-time,” “it “ becomes a malleable medium curved by mass/gravity?” Also, how is it that according to "length contraction" in relativity (the distance equivalent of malleable time) the diameter of Earth or Sun-Earth distance will vary with frame of reference from which either is measured? Does anyone actually believe "it's all relative to measurement?" Maybe this question and this thread should now be answered in my “Ontology of Spacetime” thread in the philosophy section.

Having been out of net service a few days, its review and catch-up time for me. A bit scattered... sorry, but still 'doggedly' on track for ontology of time. Cap ‘n R: Is not “what we can observe,”( calling it “dilation”) here the same as “clocks ticking at different rates in different environments?” Why assume time is “something dilating” at all? Why not just stick to what we observe, which is certainly not some entity, time? swansont: Why talk of time as a malleable entity if we have no idea what “it” is, if anything (not)? If it is just event duration of physical processes, we can just say that these processes slow down without reifying time. from my post 63, (again... still): md65536: So the whole cosmos and all of its moving parts, being physical processes which “take time” to happen, have no “duration” (elapsed time) unless and until each event is “measured?” md:... “a measurement of what?...” is exactly what ontology asks about time. I’m still hoping for an answer to this from my post 76 (Quite repetitive, I realize but still the basic unanswered ontology): Cap ‘n R: Then it is also meaningless to constantly speak of “time dilation” rather than just clock variability. The former reifies it, while the latter just speaks to what we observe. And finally, a repeat of an unanswered footnote. Who will answer the basic ontological challenge to the Einstein quote above about space and time? Paraphrased... If all matter were to disappear, so would space and time. So the emptiness left with matter gone is what?... not empty *space?* Of course, as already acknowledged, with nothing left to move, "time" as physical process duration would be meaningless, even though "it" (time) was no-thing in the first place.

md65536 I do agree that neither time nor space are entities. As for space-as-emptiness, my “problem” with the quote is that emptiness does not "disappear" when matter disappears as entities existing in space. The lack of matter in space is emptiness. If time is simply event duration as things move*, then, of course, if there are no “things” (matter) left to move... time becomes meaningless. (* faster or slower in different environments = "time dilation.") We can measure the different rates at which clocks “tick” in different environments, and call these differences “time dilation” (implying that time is an entity.) But the point of an ontological analysis of time is that it is quite different to assert that some-thing-time “dilates” than to simply acknowledge the differences in “ticking” rates in different environments. As for “stripping out those factors,” if environments are “identical” after experimental controls are perfected, will not those rates will be identical (assuming, of course, accurately calibrated and functioning clocks?) I think my comments immediately above address your reply. If relativity were to quit insisting that time is an entity which "dilates," and just call it time-keeping variability in different environments, this would satisfy the ontological objection to making time an entity.

md65536 The empirical observation is that even the most accurate clocks “tick” at variable rates in different “environments.” There is scientific consensus on this fact. The assumption that, therefore “time dilates” begs the ontological question, “What dilates?" Is "time itself” some kind of malleable medium or entity or is it just event duration, from one instance of “now” to another as in all physical processes, as everything moves (faster or slower in different circumstances.) As some of us here have agreed, any physical process can be called a clock in the broadest sense. So even if there were no intelligent life with clocks as we know them, we can say that it “takes time” for all physical processes to happen... for all movement. Ontology asks, What slows down in so called “time dilation” situations besides those physical processes? My argument is that the latter is the reality, while time remains an artifact of measurement, the concept of duration which the phrase “time dilation” erroneously reifies (making time into an entity in and of itself.) I think the above ontology is actually a more restricted sense of time than an expanded one... just elapsed time during all physical movement rather than some unexplained local variable “time environment.” As for “noticing the effects of time,” I must not understand the question, because we all notice these physical processes happening on all scales, including the human aging process. No doubt the latter must slow down with higher velocity, just as clocks do. And we can expect that those “space cadets” above aged only five years while the whole earth population aged ten years... this without saying “time slowed down” or that they “traveled through time.” This is the ontological criticism of time. I believe all of the above addresses your last question: Again, movement/processes “takes time” (and happens faster or slower) without “making something of it” (time.) Another footnote to the Einstein quote above cited by Iggy: I am still hoping for some discussion of my criticism of that statement at the bottom of my post yesterday. To the same point, say we took a small scale example... a box full of objects (matter.) We take all the stuff out of the box and now the box is empty. It makes no sense to say that the space inside the box disappears. Discussion?

Definition of ontology quoted by Cap'n Refsmmat: I stand corrected. Thank you. My error came from my background in studying metaphysics as the supposed “spiritual realm”... beyond the “physical realm,” which entails an emphasis on the “meta” as “beyond.” Sorry. Having partially extracted foot from mouth, I brushed up on my definitions and metaphysical history. Here are more quotes about the place of ontology within metaphysics. Wikipedia: From Dictionary.com: (my bold.) So anyway, the question, “What is time?” is appropriately within the ontological branch of metaphysics. It is not to be taken for granted as an existing entity ("that which clocks measure") other than the obvious concept of "event duration" (however variable) for all physical processes. Finally (to this point) a paragraph from Wikipedia on the history of science in relation to metaphysics: I think the latter inquiry is still relevant today as in the context of this thread. Even given the “mountain of evidence” empirically established for relativity (quite true), the question, “What, after all, is time?”... is still relevant. As a footnote, the same applies to the ontology of space. A bit off topic, but in brief reply to Iggy’s quote in that regard: Einstein (quoted by Iggy): ... I wonder what we would call that emptiness after everything, even space disappeared. I think that the result of matter disappearing (and the concept of elapsed time as it moved around) would be empty space... absence of "things" in space. How is this wrong? What is space besides the empty whatever... volume (pick a synonym) in which "stuff" exists and moves. This question is only appropriate to this thread as another very similar example of ontology as applied to time.

swansont; I wonder why you keep participating in a thread on a subject in which you are not particularly interested. Maybe you just need to try to discredit ontology and insist that the physics is all that matters. Btw, ontology is not metaphysics. It is the study of what qualifies as an existing entity (what an entity is) and the nature thereof in each case; almost the opposite of metaphysics, which is about what is "beyond" (meta) physics. I also notice that you use "straw man" a lot as a label to discredit ontology in general and my arguments in particular. Your reply completely avoids my point. You use ontology (and my challenge) as a straw man without even addressing my direct question: ... Likewise, again, what dilates? And calling the question a straw man argument is not an answer.

Iggy: Do you think that the event duration (elapsed time) of a Bang/Crunch cycle (or Bang to entropy) has a “life of its own” independent of measurement and transcending all local frames of reference? I do. michel: Just the meaning of the words, A: “was,”; B: “is,” and C: “will be,” the meaning of which has not been debunked or made irrelevant by relativity. Transcending the concept of (or focus on) location, the words and realities they denote are, A: “has already happened” (not happening now, in the present), B: happening now (wherever... everywhere), and C: “not yet happening in the present” (again regardless of location in all three tenses.) Iggy: And, of course, as already discussed, all physical events are "clocks" in the broadest sense. So, between one instant ("now") and another instant ("now") is "elapsed time" on whatever scale of the "event" in question. Your statement has the same meaning (or lack thereof) as the often repeated old saw, “Time is that which clocks measure,” which is a meaningless tautology. It doesn’t address “What dilates” in “time dilation”, for instance, the ontological question. Yet we all agree (I think) that clocks “tick” at different rates in different “environments” in the broadest sense, including different velocities and “gravitational environments.” In reply to swansont's statement on time transformation, I asked: swansont answered: If time is not a reference to the "event duration" of physical processes (clocks ticking, planets orbiting, galaxies rotating, cosmic lifespan or cycling), what then... what "transforms?" Sorry if ontology irritates you, but "inquiring minds"... well, they (we) keep inquiring, and this is the subject of this thread.

I ME: True, relatively speaking. But "presentism" transcends relativity's focus on who sees what happening and when. It is fairly obvious that the present is present, i.e., now everywhere... at least among ontologists who actually care about 'what time is.' If you think, for instance, on a cosmic scale rather than limited to local phenomena, what would the event duration (time) be for either a cosmic Bang/Crunch cycle... or alternatively, for the elapsed time from the Bang to total entropy? This "thought experiment" (presentism) transcends "local time"... but "What is time?" is also central to the subject of this thread... so what replies are appropriate where is a little "blurry" in this case. (I hope the gag rule doesn't apply here, though this reply does belong in "Philosophy" (of science.) But I'll quit on it anyway. Just that presentism disagrees with the statement, "Now is relative" as an absolute fact.

A little perspective here... Subject: Ontology of Time. Proposition: Time has been erroneously reified by relativity theory. Discussion: swansont: But it’s right on the nail-head for “ontology of time,” including the question “What slows down because of the effects of relativity?” Physical processes do for sure, but that doesn’t make time a malleable entity, some “thing” that “dilates”... the essence of this thread’s challenge. swansont: What is time transformation but change in the rate (speeding up or slowing down) of physical processes? s: Five years in the above example. The rocketeers come back having only aged five years and say five years have past, but their earth-based families and friends are ten years older, and all earth inhabitants say ten years have passed. Maybe it is irrelevant to say the whole earth population and its ten years is the “correct” elapsed time just because physical processes on the spaceship slowed to half the “normal” rate. Maybe the word “year” has become meaningless because of relativistic effects on physical processes. And of course for “Martians” an orbit of Mars is not an earth year. I really don’t believe that an earth year is the universal standard of time, as I’ve said a few times. It (and the “day”) is simply the event duration that all of us earthlings have in common...what “a year” means here on earth. But as I said before, using one galactic revolution or a whole “Bang/Crunch” cycle (if true) for a time reference would result in an extremely small fraction for practical use as a standardization of time units among earthlings. This may be enough said on the subject for my part. This thread probably belonged in the Philosophy section anyway where physicists can smugly scoff at the irrelevance of philosophy for science, and assert with full confidence that "Everything is relative," or even that "Relativity is the absolute truth, and time is in fact malleable."