If only two points exist does time flow?

[jajrussel]

On 8/15/2018 at 2:22 AM, argo said:

 

Calling the points A and B and considering established physics always applies then A and B move through time according to relativity. Point A stands still as B moves from A’s perspective and point B stands still as A moves from B’s perspective, if A and Bs’ perspectives can be considered a microcosm of the real universe then, if only in this relative way, we have a static universe where every point considers itself fixed at point 0,0.

A spacetime graph is a concept of relativity that works only AFTER the perspective is chosen, choosing A as 0,0 on the graph I can then show how B is moving m/s, and choosing B as 0,0 needs to be done first before A can be shown to move, the 0,0 point is always fixed relative to both A anb B and must exist before the concept of spacetime can.

I think there is a question here as to how two points that consider themselves fixed move in relation to one another, I think, and please correct me if I am wrong, the established view is A and B exist at the same time allowing A and B to flow through time together BUT if they both exist at the spacetime 0,0 point at the same time how is this possible? Ever?    No really how is this possible, please give an answer?

If A and B MUST ALWAYS exist at different times as I suggest then every spacetime graph that exists is at a different time and is effectively just a 0,0 point making up a relative universe.

There is clearly something wrong with the established model saying A and B exist together at the same time which allows the perception of time flow THEN also saying A and B exist at different times which allow relativity. Perhaps this is my fundamental mistake, perhaps the established view of relativity is NOT about different times at all and I just don’t understand the science properly.

 

This was the original post. I tried to break it down, but I kept getting confused there isn't really a question in it. It's a statement that implies that a question needs to exist because of the facts presented. I really tried to understand the frame of thought. I couldn't. I still can't.

Toward the end of the original post he seems to imply that perhaps his own thinking is fundamentally flawed, but considering the rest of the thread I'm not even sure that that is an accurate assessment?

[koti]

3 hours ago, jajrussel said:

This was the original post. I tried to break it down, but I kept getting confused there isn't really a question in it. It's a statement that implies that a question needs to exist because of the facts presented. I really tried to understand the frame of thought. I couldn't. I still can't.

Toward the end of the original post he seems to imply that perhaps his own thinking is fundamentally flawed, but considering the rest of the thread I'm not even sure that that is an accurate assessment?

Statements like: "A spacetime graph is a concept of relativity that works only AFTER the perspective is chosen..." imply a fundamental misinterpretation of relativity. Don't bother too much with this, stick to the correct terminology ("reference frames" for example instead of "perspective") and keep in mind that spacetime is an unseperable construct under relativity.

[argo]

On 9/9/2018 at 6:22 PM, jajrussel said:

Where is the notion that time has four different abilities coming from?

abilities, properties whatever the word the meaning seems lost as does me pointing out how time is being used which is what i am showing.

Time is when every particle exists but it is said that time facilitates movement as well, that's two things time apparently does according to the established way of thinking or what i call the spacetime model.

Are you saying that the WHEN something exists is the same as facilitating movement? 

 

On 9/9/2018 at 7:19 PM, koti said:

 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.

The time dimension implies flow from past to future, time is idealized as facilitating all movement and this idealistic view is accepted as the reality, 

 

On 9/6/2018 at 11:27 AM, argo said:

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.

Time means only one thing not multiple things in timespace, time is when something exists which is a different time every time. If there is no time flow there is no spacetime and that is the point i am trying to make.

 

On 9/9/2018 at 7:19 PM, koti said:

we know that time is an integral part of space but thats about it

But then it has other abilities/properties such as moving the entire universe forward in an idealized way to explain movement. 

I think WHAT is moving needs to be explained but movement is just movement and measuring it has been confused with explaining it.

[koti]

24 minutes ago, argo said:

 

But then it has other abilities/properties such as moving the entire universe forward in an idealized way to explain movement. 

I think WHAT is moving needs to be explained but movement is just movement and measuring it has been confused with explaining it.

Thats not how reltivity works. Time has an arrow and time is a property of reality, its behaviour is well explained by SR and GR. We don’t know the origin of time but we know well how it behaves with known forces. 

[argo]

On 9/10/2018 at 12:54 AM, koti said:

spacetime is an unseperable construct under relativity.

time flowing is an inseparable construct of relativity is what you're eluding to and Idealizing movement as time is not necessarily the reality. I have no problem with using a clock to measure movement because it is the best way to make calculations but that does not give me the right to call movement time.

54 minutes ago, argo said:

  On 9/6/2018 at 11:27 AM, argo said:

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.

All movement is relative without time flowing so it seems spacetime is quite separable from relativity 

( edit: or precisly say time facilitates every and all movement which seems irrelevant) 

Edited September 12, 2018 by argo

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, argo said:

time flowing is an inseparable construct of relativity 

There is no such thing as “time flowing” in relativity 

[argo]

time flows according to spactime though

20 minutes ago, argo said:

  On 9/10/2018 at 12:54 AM, koti said:

spacetime is an unseperable construct under relativity.

 

[koti]

40 minutes ago, argo said:

time flows according to spactime though

 

No it does not. And you seem to be conflating movement with entropy ( arrow of time)

Edited September 12, 2018 by koti

[argo]

I thought the arrow of time was the irreversible movement from past to future, time's direction of flow in spacetime.

[Strange]

56 minutes ago, argo said:

time flows according to spactime though

 

Space-time is the model used in relativity. There is no concept of time flowing 

24 minutes ago, argo said:

I thought the arrow of time was the irreversible movement from past to future, time's direction of flow in spacetime.

That is just human perception (and a deep philosophical problem) but nothing to do with relativity 

[argo]

Timespace has no concept of time flowing, the three dimensios of space and the one dimension of time is one time particle in timespace and every particle exists at a different time. Timespace fuses the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time into a four dimensional elementary particle which make up all the granulated space and matter of the universe.  

Spacetime  fuses the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time into a four dimensional continuum, which granulated particles of matter exist within. 

These are two very different ways of descibing the universe and I thought any reference to movement in spacetime must be a function of time. So the spacetime model has no concept of time flowing or movement of any kind but for particles to move time must flow? 

 

[Strange]

38 minutes ago, argo said:

These are two very different ways of descibing the universe

This is one way of describing the universe plus one vague half-formed idea.

38 minutes ago, argo said:

So the spacetime model has no concept of time flowing

Correct

38 minutes ago, argo said:

or movement of any kind

Of course it can describe movement. It wouldn't be a useful model of the real world otherwise, would it.

 

In this diagram, the red line represents an object that is stationary at position x1. For a moving object the world-line slopes with increasing velocity. The 45º line represents the speed of light. An object moving from x2 to x3 at a steady speed is represented by the blue line.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Strange

[argo]

Spacetime is a description of the empty space that matter exists in, it was once just a vague half-formed idea itself but bit by bit a mathematical model was formed. Timespace may not have or even be able to be modeled if only one elementary particle exists, you could model the particles as they exist at different times but only if you idealize a mechanism to measure and compare such as a clock but you would have to be aware this is just the movement between particles, not time flowing that is being measured as it would be for particles in spacetime. 

The problem with spacetime is the multiple things time is supposed to be doing, fused with space it creates the empty volume of space. Matter is said to exist now which is a moment in time which is another use and matter which is granular can move at different rates or velocities which is said to be facilitated by time. 

I have a simple alternative that is a compatible reason for relativity, everything exists at a different time. Time creates a three dimensional elementary space to exist in and this particle exists at every individual different time. Time creates the different granulated spaces because time is not nothing therefore time actually exists, but in contrast to the spacetime model it is doing the only thing that time would naturally do, create different times.

There is supporting evidence in the fact that this granulated medium would support wave function where empty space would or at least should not. If you care to consider the fact that the only difference between two particles that exist at different times is the different time, then wave-particle duality is only one particle existing at different places in time, both a particle and a wave.

I certainly don't have all the answers i just thought it was an interesting idea, nobody here gives me a reason to think it is not possible or even feasible, certainly not by reiterating the spacetime model or ignoring its faults. 

You may have to think about time differently or perhaps change or invent different terminology to describe timespace but it is fundamentally the same thing as spacetime, i am not a mathematician and as this is a mathematical model best left to others with my humble blessing.

I have tried my best now I'm done, thankyou to all and goodnite.

 

[Strange]

26 minutes ago, argo said:

it was once just a vague half-formed idea itself but bit by bit a mathematical model was formed.

It started out as a mathematical model. 

27 minutes ago, argo said:

The problem with spacetime is the multiple things time is supposed to be doing

I think the only problem is that you don’t understand what relativity says so you are making up your own version. 

28 minutes ago, argo said:

I have tried my best now I'm done, thankyou to all and goodnite.

And to you

 

[argo]

No, you form an idea before you form a mathematical model of that idea otherwise its effect before cause.

You say every particle exists at the same time but then you say these particles don’t flow through time together, if they don’t flow through time together at the next time then they must flow through time at different times.

On 9/13/2018 at 9:22 PM, Strange said:

you are making up your own version.

 it is only the end because of compartmentalized thinking saying opposite things, it's like arguing against religion. 

[Strange]

2 hours ago, argo said:

You say every particle exists at the same time

No I don’t. I say that is a meaningless statement. 

2 hours ago, argo said:

it is only the end because of compartmentalized thinking saying opposite things, it's like arguing against religion. 

You can comfort yourself that way instead of learning about relativity but it is a very silly attitude. 

Making up stuff that only makes sense to you is easy but a waste of time. 

[argo]

You say every particle in your body exists at the same time AND time facilitates movement in spacetime.

This is two totally different and opposite meanings for the one term, if everything exists at a common time and continues to exist at that same time, moment after moment as if time were flowing, then there are no individual times facilitating independent  movement.

You introduce timeflow into spacetime as if time facilitates a different independent movement for every particle but insist every particle exists at the same time, it is two opposite meanings and the only alternative is everything exists at a different time.

I call this “investor blindness”, you are too invested in one idea of something to listen to any other, so of course at least one meaning must be meaningless and not mentioned. 

around and around and around.....

[Strange]

4 hours ago, argo said:

You say every particle in your body exists at the same time AND time facilitates movement in spacetime.

I don’t. 

4 hours ago, argo said:

You introduce timeflow into spacetime

Nope. Time doesn’t flow in relativity. 

Why don’t you find out what relativity says instead of making all these strawman arguments against a theory that doesn’t exist. 

4 hours ago, argo said:

I call this “investor blindness”, you are too invested in one idea of something to listen to any other, so of course at least one meaning must be meaningless and not mentioned. 

There is a certain irony to this, which I guess you are blind to. 

[argo]

On 8/20/2018 at 12:00 AM, Strange said:

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).

You are a strange character who says one thing and then denies saying it, relativity is being based on the assumption that everything exists at the same time but i think there is a good case for basing it on everything existing at a different time,  there is no issue with the evidence for relativity except movement is just movement which has nothing to do with time in this case. 

 

On 9/12/2018 at 11:29 PM, Strange said:

On 9/12/2018 at 11:19 PM, argo said:

So the spacetime model has no concept of time flowing

Correct

On 9/12/2018 at 11:19 PM, argo said:

or movement of any kind

Of course it can describe movement. It wouldn't be a useful model of the real world otherwise, would it.

 

  Of course it describes time facilitating movement, but i will happily agree time doesn't facilitate movement if this is what you're saying.

and around and around..... 

 

 

 

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, argo said:

i think there is a good case for basing it on everything existing at a different time

Then all you need to do is produce a mathematical model based on that. 

The mathematics of special relativity is very, very simple. The most complicated thing in it is a square root. Presumably your model should be equally simple.