If only two points exist does time flow?

[jajrussel]

I was just reading about the lorentz transformation when I realized that while trying to concentrate and understand what I was reading I was focusing on what should have been, actually is, intuitive, because of their wording. Sort of like looking for the magic key to understanding where there is no need.

What I'm saying is that sometimes something that sounds complicatedly important can turn out to one of those Duh moments when you realize what they are actually saying is that both are moving at constant velocity, neither accelerating... Which, should be intuitive considering the goal.

I think it comes from the desire to form the perfect frame of thought, it maybe in this case the perfect reference frame.

I get lost in those moments, sometimes.

It's like being told that in order to be a good driver I need to pay attention and use my peripheral vision. So, I wanting to drive to impress, drive down the road never actually looking at what is right in front of me, because I am concentrating on what I need to do to be good driver.

Realizing that the sciences are not magic can be a big let down for some of us. (It's not magic!)  Bummer....  ...

 

Edited August 22, 2018 by jajrussel

[argo]

On 8/20/2018 at 9:55 PM, studiot said:

Essentially you are observing (I think) that the curvature in GR in a given volume depends upon the matter particles present in that volume(as well as to a lesser extent those more remote).

i haven't thought a lot about how this is applied to gravity but i do think if every particle exists at a different time there is no four dimensional universe or time frames unless they contain just one particle. I think different places in space are made from different moments in time, in the same way particles are granular the whole universe is granular due to different times.

 

On 8/20/2018 at 9:55 PM, studiot said:

Thus if a particle that exists in one spacetime frame but doesn't in another doesn't that imply that curvature and therefore relativistic effects eg gravity are frame dependant?

thus if a particle exists alone in one timeframe and the universe is all timeframes......i don't know what this implies about curvature but it does describe a granular geometry with relativistic effects due to different times.

 

On 8/19/2018 at 2:41 AM, Strange said:

  On 8/19/2018 at 1:44 AM, mistermack said:

Yes. But empty space time isn't nothing.

 

On 8/19/2018 at 2:41 AM, Strange said:

  On 8/19/2018 at 1:44 AM, mistermack said:

The dimensions are dimensions of something, not nothing. 

if every part of the universe exists at a different time, then time is not nothing.

Now is when something exists just as here is where something exists, and everything that exists must exist somewhere.

[jajrussel]

11 hours ago, argo said:

if every part of the universe exists at a different time, then time is not nothing.

Isn't this just a way of saying that time is static? Time is not nothing it is part of a coordinate system, a dot on a map that represents a position with a value? Apply gravity and the value changes. Apply enough gravity and the map no longer matters. Nothing moves. Now it is pure metaphysics. A place said to possibly exist in Black holes, yet there they are, or aren't? Moving through the universe. It seems to me we need a universe that moves in order for relativity to work, in order for Black holes to exist. A question then might be do we need two particles for time to stop. If we do then that gives the term singularity a whole new meaning.

[jajrussel]

Well, maybe not a new meaning?

[argo]

11 hours ago, jajrussel said:

Isn't this just a way of saying that time is static? Time is not nothing it is part of a coordinate system, a dot on a map that represents a position with a value? 

I like your question and i hope that by explaining the model it shows how time is static at every coordinate point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference

Quote

A relativistic reference frame includes (or implies) the coordinate time, which does not correspond across different frames moving relatively to each other. The situation thus differs from Galilean relativity, where all possible coordinate times are essentially equivalent.

Timespace Model

Timespace is the opposite of Spacetime

Every coordinate of an idealized timespace model exists at a different time surrounded by other coordinates at different times. Pick any coordinate and it will already be existing here and now, the only difference between two coordinates in timespace is time at those coordinates where the particular moments exist; I am assuming individual time needs individual space. Space is idealized and defined as area denial at a point in time rather than just nothingness without a time.

Either everything exists at the same time or not. Putting more than one particle in a reference frame is the same as saying, “everything exists at the same time” but not absolutely when it comes to relativity of simultaneity. IF everything exists at a different time –granularly- nothing need ever exist at the same time and there is no contradiction, simultaneity is relative due to different times.

A relativistic reference frame implies the coordinate time is moving everything at the same time, not everything is fixed at a different time and these are the particles that move.

All relativity proves is movement is relative, what you call time and the coordinate model you idealize should be up to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference

Quote

Choice of what to measure and with what observational apparatus is a matter separate from the observer's state of motion and choice of coordinate system

[argo]

If this explanation is not too vague, could any member, whom understands it show me a flaw with timespace? 

if only two points exist can time flow? I think it depends on what model is used. 

May all be nonsense, please help falsify.

[Strange]

13 hours ago, argo said:

Every coordinate of an idealized timespace model exists at a different time surrounded by other coordinates at different times.

I don’t understand how this works mathematically. 

Nor practically, either. For example, for two electrons to collide they must meet at the same point in space and time. Otherwise it is like us arranging to meet at a bar, but you are there on Thursday and I am there on Saturday. We won’t meet. Similarly, if the two particles are not at the same space and time they won’t meet.  

 

[argo]

Coordinates that are close physically are close temporally, the times between two points is also the distance mathematically.

Two electron come together like two bar stools come together, they collide, they don't occupy the same space or time. They are next to not inside of each other, an elementary particle wouldn't be elementary if this were the case.

The times are always now in the timespace model, Thursday, Saturday and therefore a time that flows are the spacetime model. This is just saying time doesn't flow in my model and i agree.

 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by argo

[Strange]

OK. Let’s see the mathematical details of your model. Can you show that it makes the same predictions for time dilation and length contraction?

[argo]

yes to a degree but only off the back of the math according to the established model. (a mathematician I am not)

On 8/25/2018 at 8:38 AM, argo said:

A relativistic reference frame implies the coordinate time is moving everything at the same time, not everything is fixed at a different time and these are the particles that move.

Depending on whats being inferred it should be possible to replace t with m.

Ticks of the clock are just the particles moving in timespace, but just as correct this could have read, ticks of the clock are the particles moving in spacetime, its like looking in a mirror.

On 8/25/2018 at 8:38 AM, argo said:

All relativity proves is movement is relative, what you call time and the coordinate model you idealize should be up to you

 Is this statement not true? Why should the math change if its simply a matter of terminology.

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Can I check on something?

Does either of the points have angels dancing on it?  If so, how many?

[argo]

From the movie, Bad Boy Bubby

Quote

Its every mans duty to think god out of existence.

lmao

[argo]

Does anybody have a reason why everything shouldn't exists at different times, or are we done?

[Strange]

46 minutes ago, argo said:

Does anybody have a reason why everything shouldn't exists at different times, or are we done?

Or: "I won't listen to any explanations about why I am wrong, so I will assume I am right"

 

[argo]

Falsifying Spacetime

Spacetime infers movement is time. Timespace infers movement is just movement.

If time is movement and everything in space moves individually then everything must have an individual time, not the whole universe has an individual time that flows on to the next time..

 

I think movement needs an idealized clock put over it so we can make measurements, this much i can agree on, but don't forget that clock was never a reality in the first place.

I am wondering what explanation am i not listening to? 

[Strange]

27 minutes ago, argo said:

Falsifying Spacetime

The only way you can falsify a theory is by an observation or experiment that contradicts it. 

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

The only way you can falsify a theory is by an observation or experiment that contradicts it. 

In the context of this thread, it is worth remembering that a thought experiment may be sufficient to falsify a theory.

Ask Galileo about Aristotle...

[Strange]

23 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

In the context of this thread, it is worth remembering that a thought experiment may be sufficient to falsify a theory.

Ask Galileo about Aristotle...

Only if the thought experiment is consistent with observations. It is trivial to come up with a thought experiment that doesn't represent reality. 

So it is the observations that falsify a theory, not the thought experiment that illustrates those observations.

[John Cuthber]

I look forward to you telling the tales of your experiences in the "only 2 points universe" so we can use the results of those observations to make progress on the thought experiments.

In the meantime, we might choose to think of things that would happen in an environment we have not observed and never can.

[argo]

Still wondering what explanation i didn't listen to.

Is spacetime saying movement IS time or not? 

If particles can move relative to one another and movement is time, then every particle must have it's own time, right or wrong?

Spacetime can't have it both ways, either the whole universe moves forward in time or every particle has its own time, NOT BOTH, right or wrong?

Every coordinate in the timespace model is a particle making up the universe, the ONLY difference between two particles are when they exist, if time is not nothing then i don't  see the problem with this model especially if all relativity proves is movement is relative.

Edited August 31, 2018 by argo

[Strange]

2 hours ago, argo said:

Is spacetime saying movement IS time or not?

No. 

2 hours ago, argo said:

Spacetime can't have it both ways, either the whole universe moves forward in time or every particle has its own time, NOT BOTH, right or wrong?

Everything moves forward in time. Every observer measures this differently. There is no contradiction here. You only think there is because you can’t be bothered to learn what relativity says and are just making stuff up. 

2 hours ago, argo said:

Every coordinate in the timespace model

You don’t have a model. You have a vague idea. You can’t make any testable predctions (or even explain it coherently). 

[argo]

17 hours ago, Strange said:

Everything moves forward in time. Every observer measures this differently

So every observer measures TIME differently but somehow this does not mean there are different times, if you hold your hands out and spin around do you observe your hands flowing through time at a different rate than your head?

When your hands reach c and your head is still moving are you still saying every part of you exists at the same time?

If everything moved forward in time together as you say then this is what would be observed; it's not and that's  contradictory. 

i think i am explaining everything clearly, either everything exists at the same time absolutely or not, its not difficult to understand and i think you're being vague about what you don't understand.

[Strange]

8 hours ago, argo said:

So every observer measures TIME differently but somehow this does not mean there are different times, if you hold your hands out and spin around do you observe your hands flowing through time at a different rate than your head?

Yes. Your your hands would age slightly less than your body in this case. 

8 hours ago, argo said:

When your hands reach c and your head is still moving are you still saying every part of you exists at the same time?

I don’t know what you mean by “exists at the same time”

8 hours ago, argo said:

If everything moved forward in time together as you say then this is what would be observed; it's not and that's  contradictory. 

That isn’t what I said. 

 

[argo]

On 9/1/2018 at 7:37 PM, Strange said:

I don’t know what you mean by “exists at the same time”

I don't seem to be able to quote from a previous page but these are your words:

Quote

All the atoms in my body, and the particles they are made up of, exist at the same time otherwise I would be like some strange character from Dr WHo; spread out through time and not really existing anywhere (or anywhen).

I think you understand but you disagree which is fine, but your vagueness looks like a thinly veiled excuse to me.

You, me, Dr Who characters and absolutely everything always exist here and now.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Quote

According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.

All i am asking is absolutely and in every sense, could everything exist at different times without exception? Seriously i am not saying you must accept the timespace model, just to talk about it, just try entertaining the idea and not always looking at it from the opposing spacetime model.

 

On 8/25/2018 at 8:38 AM, argo said:

Timespace Model

Timespace is the opposite of Spacetime

Every coordinate of an idealized timespace model exists at a different time surrounded by other coordinates at different times. Pick any coordinate and it will already be existing here and now, the only difference between two coordinates in timespace is time at those coordinates where the particular moments exist; I am assuming individual time needs individual space. Space is idealized and defined as area denial at a point in time rather than just nothingness without a time.

Either everything exists at the same time or not. Putting more than one particle in a reference frame is the same as saying, “everything exists at the same time” but not absolutely when it comes to relativity of simultaneity. IF everything exists at a different time –granularly- nothing need ever exist at the same time and there is no contradiction, simultaneity is relative due to different times.

A relativistic reference frame implies the coordinate time is moving everything at the same time, not everything is fixed at a different time and these are the particles that move.

All relativity proves is movement is relative, what you call time and the coordinate model you idealize should be up to you.

 Your hands would not age at all at c but your head would so it is not possible that every part of your body exists at the same time.

A different time in spacetime is when all particles exist, a different time in timespace is when each particle exists.

[Strange]

4 hours ago, argo said:

I think you understand

I don’t. The text you quote was intended to show that the concept of “not existing at the same time” is nonsense/meaningless. 

4 hours ago, argo said:

You, me, Dr Who characters and absolutely everything always exist here and now.

Well, apart from Dr Who being fictional and you being “there” and me being “here”, that was the point I was trying to make. 

But we may all measure time differently. 

4 hours ago, argo said:

All i am asking is absolutely and in every sense, could everything exist at different times without exception?

Define “exist”. 

Define “at the same time”. 

But, in general, you and me and the Internet “exist at the same time” otherwise we would not be having this conversation. 

On the other hand, The Titanic existed at a different time, which is why I am not crossing the Atlantic on it.