If only two points exist does time flow?

[argo]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

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

hmmm

4 hours ago, argo said:

  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've got nothing to add, it speaks for itself.

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

5 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.

To you i am there but to me i am here, its all relative, according to any particular particle though it exists here and now regardless how others see it which is all that matters.

Only looking at it from the spacetime model where movement is idealized as time- we may all measure time differently- alas should we ever look at this from the timespace model-we may all measure movement differently. All relativity proves is movement is relative, what you call time and the coordinate model you idealize should be up to you.

45 minutes ago, Strange said:

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. 

Exist

Spacetime: must be a particle

Timespace: any and all coordinate points that can be here and now. The only thing that ever really exists is a time particle. (time is not nothing)

At The same time

Spacetime: time is idealized as movement, in general everything exists at the same time and moves through time.

Timespace: time is when a particle exists, particles are particles because they never exist at the same time. (movement is just movement between particles, nothing to do with time moving)

 

Thankyou Strange, i doubt I would not have come up with time particle notion alone. 

How are your hands going in that thought experiment, say 10 thousand years on now your head no longer exists? (in general, does your own body exist at the same time?)

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, argo said:

I've got nothing to add, it speaks for itself.

You seem to be implying some sort of inconsistency when I am doubtful about one concept but affirm the opposite. 

1 hour ago, argo said:

the spacetime model where movement is idealized as time

Except this isn’t true. Are you arguing against a strawman of your own invention?

1 hour ago, argo said:

 All relativity proves is movement is relative

That is Galilean relativity. A very old idea. Modern relativity takes it a step further and shows that measurements of time and space are also relative (and inter-related). 

1 hour ago, argo said:

Spacetime: must be a particle

There is no evidence for this. 

1 hour ago, argo said:

Thankyou Strange, i doubt I would not have come up with time particle notion alone. 

Now all you need to do is come up with a testable (ie mathematical) model. And test it. 

1 hour ago, argo said:

does your own body exist at the same time?

Obviously. I would be worried if my left leg existed in 1600 and my right hand wouldn’t exist until 2025. 

So I guess you mean something different by “at the same time” but I have no idea what you mean. 

[argo]

You say every particle in your body exists at the same time but then you seem to deny this is what you intended to say? 

On 9/3/2018 at 7:01 PM, argo said:

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

Do you think every particle in your body exists at A. the same time B. different times or C. both according to the spacetime model? Is there any other alternative?

Is there a problem with the thought experiment where your hands never age while the rest of your body decays away? How can every particle in your body exist at the same time if your body doesn't? 

 

On 9/3/2018 at 8:46 PM, Strange said:

On 9/3/2018 at 7:01 PM, argo said:

the spacetime model where movement is idealized as time

Except this isn’t true. Are you arguing against a strawman of your own invention?

Does movement stop if time stops? Does time slow down as movement speeds up and vise-versa? Are you saying that time only facilitates movement but stipulating it isn't true that time actually IS movement? What are you actually saying here?

I want to and will answer the rest of your post but please if you could clear up what you're saying here.

[Strange]

35 minutes ago, argo said:

You say every particle in your body exists at the same time but then you seem to deny this is what you intended to say? 

No. Clearly, neither of us is explaining ourselves well. 

What I am saying is that every part of my body is here now (12:24).

This seems to contradict your assertion that particles "do not exist at the same time". Or (perhaps more likely) that I don't understand what you mean by this. As you are unable to clarify this further (other than just repeating "particles don't exist at the same time") then I guess we are not going to get anywhere.

35 minutes ago, argo said:

Do you think every particle in your body exists at A. the same time B. different times or C. both according to the spacetime model? Is there any other alternative?

As far as I can tell, they are all here now. 

I assume by "spacetime model" you mean special or general relativity. There is nothing in that model that says the particles of my body are not all here at the same time. 

35 minutes ago, argo said:

Is there a problem with the thought experiment where your hands never age while the rest of your body decays away?

Well, there is a problem with "never age".

But yes, it is true that, for example, the cells in the top of my head are ageing ever so slightly slightly faster than the cells in my feet. (Amazingly, we have clocks that can measure this difference)

Is that what you mean by "not existing at the same time"? That is a very odd phrase to describe this.

I think  that what you really mean is something like "experiencing time passing at different rates" or more conventionally "time dilation"?

35 minutes ago, argo said:

Does movement stop if time stops?

As time cannot stop, the question is meaningless. (But, obviously, if there were no time there could be no movement. Similarly, if there were no space there could be no movement.)

35 minutes ago, argo said:

Does time slow down as movement speeds up and vise-versa?

Yes (crudely speaking; don't forget that this is just a relative measurement, because movement is relative). Note that length ("space") changes as well.

35 minutes ago, argo said:

Are you saying that time only facilitates movement but stipulating it isn't true that time actually IS movement? What are you actually saying here?

Yes, I am saying that time is not movement. Neither is space. Movement is a relationship between time and space, if you like.

Our relative measurements of time and of space are affected by relative motion, but time, space and motion are different things.

There is still time and space even with no movement. For example, you can use general relativity to study the behaviour of empty space-time (where there is nothing to move).

The muon is a fundamental particle with no "moving parts" but time passes for a stationary muon and it will decay after a few microseconds.

In the most accurate atomic clocks, one of the challenges is minimising movement and compensating for any remaining motion.

----

p.s. You probably need to get to grips with the concepts of "proper time" (what an observer measures with their own clock; it always passes at the same rate) and "coordinate time" (what an observer measures [or calculates] for another frame of reference). This might help clear up your confusion.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Strange

[argo]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

No. Clearly, neither of us is explaining ourselves well. 

What I am saying is that every part of my body is here now (12:24).

This seems to contradict your assertion that particles "do not exist at the same time". Or (perhaps more likely) that I don't understand what you mean by this. As you are unable to clarify this further (other than just repeating "particles don't exist at the same time") then I guess we are not going to get anywhere.

Every particle is always here now regardless of your clock, the only way I can make sense of you being here now and me being here now (if only one here now is possible) is we exist at different times.

On 9/3/2018 at 8:46 PM, Strange said:

On 9/3/2018 at 7:01 PM, argo said:

 All relativity proves is movement is relative

That is Galilean relativity. A very old idea. Modern relativity takes it a step further and shows that measurements of time and space are also relative (and inter-related). 

Modern relativity measures time flowing, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity for instance idealize spacetime clocks measuring and facilitating movement. Time is not  idealized as facilitating movement in any way if every particle exists at a different time, time is when and what makes one particle different from another only. 

You seem to lack the imagination to see there can be no time flow if time is idealized this way, this is not Galilean relativity which also idealizes time facilitating movement.

Time dilation is just length contraction between two time particles and relativity of simultaneity is absolute if every particle actually existed in it's own individual moment.

You simply idealize time flowing to facilitate movement, I think time can be idealized as a particle. Maybe what i should have said is, "All relativity needs to prove to satisfy the evidence is that movement between time particles is relative.'

I hope this gives some clarity and thank you for your time and interest.

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, argo said:

Every particle is always here now regardless of your clock, the only way I can make sense of you being here now and me being here now (if only one here now is possible) is we exist at different times.

Disregarding time zone differences, that isn't true. Otherwise we wouldn't be communicating. (Although it is not clear we are communicating!  ) Note that there isn't anyone from 1728 or 2019 joining in because they really do exist at a different time.

Or ... I still don't understand what you mean by "different times". 

9 minutes ago, argo said:

I hope this gives some clarity and thank you for your time and interest.

Didn't understand a word, I'm afraid. For example "relativity of simultaneity is absolute"; how can relativity be absolute? And it isn't absolute, it is relative; each observer may perceive it differently.

I wish someone else would try and understand ... (others often see through to meanings I can't)

But, ultimately, the trouble is, you are comparing relativity(*) which is a detailed mathematical model that makes testable (and tested) predictions with a vague concept you have in your head which is not testable in any way.

(*) or your slightly confused idea of what it is

Edited September 5, 2018 by Strange

[argo]

12 minutes ago, argo said:

(if only one here now is possible)

Your now is when you exist how is it different from my now?

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, argo said:

Your now is when you exist how is it different from my now?

How do you define "now"?

Did you look up coordinate and proper time?

[argo]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

How do you define "now"?

that's a funny question 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Your now is when you exist

 

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

Did you look up coordinate and proper time?

defined as the time as measured by a clock

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, argo said:

defined as the time as measured by a clock

Whose clock?

[argo]

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

Quote

Proper time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Jump to navigationJump to search

In relativity, proper time along a timelike world line is defined as the time as measured by a clock following that line. 

 

48 minutes ago, argo said:

1 hour ago, argo said:

(if only one here now is possible)

Your now is when you exist how is it different from my now?

 

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, argo said:

Your now is when you exist how is it different from my now?

If we are in relative motion then the rate at which our clocks tick is related by the Lorentz transform. 

Relativity doesn’t say anything about “now”. So I don’t know how to answer your question. 

[argo]

If you can't talk about the reality - when you exist- but you can talk about - idealized clocks ticking-, then this is the communication problem.

[Strange]

If you can only talk about vague concepts instead of well-defined mathematics, then that is the communication problem 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Strange

[argo]

Not knowing if you exist now is pretty vague, only able to idealize time one way is the problem. 

 

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, argo said:

Not knowing if you exist now is pretty vague, only able to idealize time one way is the problem. 

 

You still haven’t defined what “now” or “at the same time” means. Which is why the question is so vague. 

The only interpretation I can come up with is that we must both exist at the same time because we are having this conversation. But if it goes on long enough, only one of us will exist and then we won’t both exist at the same time. 

 

[argo]

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

Quote

In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.

I would like to assure you I have read and understood the concepts, as much as a non-mathematician can, the history, thought experiments, Lorentz transformation and accelerated observers. The history using the mathematical model of local time for explaining no ather drift, Poincaré derived local time and how synchronizing his clocks by using light signals, they will only consider the transit time for the signals, but not their motion in respect to the aether. So the moving clocks are not synchronous and do not indicate the "true" time. Poincaré calculated that this synchronization error corresponds to Lorentz's local time. 

It is not that I am unawares it is that when we think of all the particles in the universe existing at the same time and time moving these particles past to future it seems so completely flawed that instead of going a step further from Galilean relativity we should take a step back and consider if all the particles in the universe don’t exist at the same time at all.

All the particles in Galilean relativity move forward in time like the particles of a photograph are moved forward but then, like a movie time is supposed to also move the individual particles and if we go a step further within the spacetime model to Einstein relativity then time also facilitates the movement of the particles at different rates.

Amazingly though through brilliant mathematical skill this completely flawed situation persists and the shadow of the reality is revealed albeit dragging all the corrupted ideas of time flow and things existing at the same time with it.

If we consider the horrible alternative that everything does not exist at the same time then its back to the drawing board, the shadow can now be applied to the reality and the evidence rechecked from within this new model.

It makes no sense to use spacetime to show the flaws in timespace or vise-versa when you must use the model with flaw in it to show how that model is flawed, every argument against timespace must come from within the timespace model.

8 hours ago, Strange said:

The only interpretation I can come up with is that we must both exist at the same time because we are having this conversation. But if it goes on long enough, only one of us will exist and then we won’t both exist at the same time. 

In the timespace model time is a particle, each particle is locked into a fixed time at a fixed place, the only interaction it should have with another particle is to deny this time and space because basically it owns that particular time and space effectively forever. Two particles may appear to move relative to one another because they are not restricted by the others version of reality.

You and I are made of these particles according to timespace, through evolution of our bodies we have found another form of interaction, having conversations and visualizing the universe but we always remain the sum of our parts.

This may seem odd according to spacetime but if everything exists at a different time this is the practical alternative, time is when a particle exists only, exclusively and absolutely, not a dimension facilitating movement.

 

 

i need a short break to catch up on things i have been neglecting. 

[Strange]

6 hours ago, argo said:

we should take a step back and consider if all the particles in the universe don’t exist at the same time at all.

So what you need to do is create a model based on that idea and show that it works better than the existing model. 

 

[jajrussel]

I downloaded a simple decibel meter and while playing with it realized I was seeing what I heard while in the hospital. The bump wash, bump wash, if my heart. It covers 30 seconds of time. Each beat roughly one second apart.

This conversation came to mind. In the graph time seems to flow, I exist, my fingers exist, my toes exist, the world, the universe, exists.

What is missing is position.

I am recording my heart beat. Where my fingers and toes are don't really matter.

It seems that in some parts of this conversation a distinction wants to be made? My fingers, toes, and heart all exist at the same time, but the actual picture is more than time. Time is just one defining dimension. It's the combination that defines exact positions. It seems that at times you are trying to say that one does all.

In the picture. It is my heart beating, not time. In order to measure my heart beat time as a measure needs to be static. It is my heart beat that flows through a moving universe. In order to see it I need a static measure.

How does relativity work? I'm always stationed at zero. It's everyone else's clock that is moving slower. It's always a mirror image. I see the twin moving near light speed, the twin sees me moving at near light speed. The question is which reference frame matters? Who is in the rocket? Who stays on Earth?

It becomes weird when we lose perspective. I wonder what the actual question is? It seems like at times the thought is that time expands with the universe therefore time is not static, but if time is not static how would we know the universe is expanding. We would be just like the twin in the rocket never realizing that from our twins perspective  that our rocket is now 60% shorter than it was when we left Earth. Our rocket twin is still going to measure it's length at 100% of normal. His clock runs normal.

It seems we have gone to great lengths to make sure a meter of measure doesn't change. We seem to need it to be static. We define it with exactitude. Seemingly to folly, until we get down to businesses. At that point all we need is a variance. In order to note a variance the divisions must remain static. In the picture the bump wash, bump wash, of my heart beat varies through the thirty seconds of time, but I wouldn't be able to tell, if the markings didn't remain static.

Other threads are more confusing and just as fun to think about, cause in at  one I noticed a thought that seemed to confuse relativity. A vessel of energy gaining energy through perception due to relativity. The vessel measures smaller because of it's velocity, therefore the energy within the vessel supposedly increases within it's own perspective?

Hmm, I need to find that thread! 

Edited September 9, 2018 by jajrussel

[argo]

I know my limitations strange, physics is just a hobby, i will never have the necessary mathematical skill and i know that what i explain is vague without it. Big thankyou to www.scienceforums.net for letting me express my ideas and perhaps someone out there will take it further, all i want is the truth.

According to the spacetime model time has many different and amazing  abilities, first all the particles of the three dimensional picture we call reality exist at the same time, time’s first ability is when everything exists together. Second all the particles flow through time moving this picture of reality forward, this is time’s second ability. Third all the particles can move independent of one another so, if time facilitates all movement every particle must be able to exist at different times, time’s third ability is everything exists at a different time which appears to contradict its first ability. Time’s abilities so far bring us to the very old idea of Newtonian relativity but amazingly and unimaginably we just keep adding more abilities whenever we get stuck.

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

Quote

Some of the assumptions and properties of Newton's theory are:

1.   The existence of infinitely many inertial frames. Each frame is of infinite size (the entire universe may be covered by many linearly equivalent frames). Any two frames may be in relative uniform motion. (The relativistic nature of mechanics derived above shows that the absolute space assumption is not necessary.)

2.   The inertial frames may move in all possible relative forms of uniform motion.

3.   There is a universal, or absolute, notion of time.

4.   Two inertial frames are related by a Galilean transformation.

5.   In all inertial frames, Newton's laws, and gravity, hold.

In comparison, the corresponding statements from special relativity are as follows:

1.   The existence, as well, of infinitely many non-inertial frames, each of which referenced to (and physically determined by) a unique set of spacetime coordinates. Each frame may be of infinite size, but its definition is always determined locally by contextual physical conditions. Any two frames may be in relative non-uniform motion (as long as it is assumed that this condition of relative motion implies a relativistic dynamical effect -and later, mechanical effect in general relativity- between both frames).

2.   Rather than freely allowing all conditions of relative uniform motion between frames of reference, the relative velocity between two inertial frames becomes bounded above by the speed of light.

3.   Instead of universal time, each inertial frame possesses its own notion of time.

4.   The Galilean transformations are replaced by Lorentz transformations.

5.   In all inertial frames, all laws of physics are the same.

 

To handle special relatively time is given its fourth ability, now all the particles not only move forward independently but they do so at different rates, time’s fourth ability is to possess its own notion of time.

Instead of all these amazing abilities that the spacetime model says time has, (with careless disregard of any continuity between abilities) perhaps everything does not exist at the same time.

Time has only one ability according to a timespace model, all the particles of the three dimensional picture exist separately at different times. Both space and matter are made of time particles.

[jajrussel]

This is an example of time getting mixed up. According to my device you posted a minute before me, but your post follows mine.

[Strange]

52 minutes ago, argo said:

all i want is the truth

Then science may not be the right subject for you. 

[argo]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

1 hour ago, argo said:

all i want is the truth

Then science may not be the right subject for you.

as best the evidence can provide until proved otherwise, nice one.

[jajrussel]

2 hours ago, argo said:

all i want is the truth.

I followed your link. I read it. Where? Did it even imply that time has abilities?

2 hours ago, argo said:

To handle special relatively time is given its fourth ability, now all the particles not only move forward independently but they do so at different rates, time’s fourth ability is to possess its own notion of time.

Is this your opinion based on your admitted limited understanding, or did it say this somewhere in the wiki article?

Where is the notion that time has four different abilities coming from? The wiki article? Why would time need abilities?

2 hours ago, argo said:

all the particles flow through time

This is the only part of your post that makes sense, except, well for the wiki article.

Are you thinking of the distinction between time t, and time t' as an ability of time?

Why would you think that?

Edited September 9, 2018 by jajrussel
Spelling/ correcting inserted word correction

[koti]

+1, I remember your first posts some time back, you made huge progress man.

Its worth noting that the statement „particles flow through time” is very missleading. Time is treated as the 4th variable or dimention in GR’s geometry, simply a 4th variable on top of the 3 spacial variables in the coordinate system. Geometry tells us that spacial and temporal dimentions are equally not fixed, they bend which we perceive as time dilation and lenght contraction hence the name ‚Relativity’ We know that time has an arrow which makes things happen in a certain order (we don’t remember what happened tomorrow for example) and we know that time is an integral part of space but thats about it, we do not really know the fundamental nature of time yet. I think the OP question is missleading because it implies that for causality to take place there has to be matter present. I don’t think that is the right way of aproaching the „flow” of time under GR. 

Edited September 9, 2018 by koti