Time.

[Edtharan]

But if those objects do not move, we can hold no concept of time.

How about if they did not move, but changed, say a Neutrino changing into another type of Neutrino and back. 1 Object, no movement, 2 events separated by time. We have time without movement.

 

The real fact is that there exist no period in this universe that there only existed a single object. But, even in a universe with a single object Time can exist without movement (as the neutrino demonstrates).

 

If the universe consisted of two objects and two objects alone, separated by some distance, we could hold a concept of space.

What a bout a large particle? Could then the size of the particle (rather than a point like particle) give us a measure of distance? A single particle and we can still get a definition of a measure of distance.

 

Sorry, your "strawmen" arguments like this just don't stand up to scrutiny.

 

You can get a definition of both distance and time with only a singe particle in the universe. You just have to be a bit more creative in what you use as a "yardstick". If you only use our current "yardsticks" definitions, then of course you won't be able to get a reasonable measurement, but our current definitions of the units are not the only way to arrive at a regular set of units with which to measure something.

 

Think about this: A planet tide locked to it's parent Star so that one side only faces the sun would not have been able to use our old definition of a measurement for time: A Day consisting of the period of time it takes to go form mid day through night back to midday again. On such a tide locked planet this definition of the unit of time is utter nonsense, but someone on that planet can come to a definition of Time and even then relate it to what we call a day.

 

Again (and I don't think you have under stood this): What you use to measure something is not the thing that you are measuring.

 

but the interval between events is measured in terms of other events, and the interval between those events is measured in terms of other events.

The interval between events is measured by events. This by no logical reason means that the period is made up of events. An interval is bounded by events. That is how we know that a period has passed. We set an arbitrary event to mark the end of the period (please note the use of the word arbitrary).

 

Eventually there are no more events, merely intervals. These intervals are frozen timeless moments.

This is a complete Strawman. Not only that there is no logical follow form the first sentence of this paragraph to this sentence. You are making two distinct claims (namely that periods consist of events and that intervals are of 0 length) and implying that they are linked but offer no argument or rational as to why they are.

 

Yes, we might assume that an event is of 0 length (but it turns out that they are not 0 length), but how does the length of an event translate into the length of time between them?

 

An interval is a period of time. Not a "Timeless moment". Ether an interval is a period or it is instantaneous. It can not be both.

 

Looking to Quantum Mechanics, there appears to be no such thing as Instantaneous either. SO this too breaks down your argument. There is no such thing as a "Timeless Moment" and proposing that as a physical reality is therefore wrong (and any conclusions you reach from making that assumption are therefore wrong).

 

Lets even look at the mathematics of a "Timeless Moment". If there exists such a thing, then an infinite amount of Timeless moments must occur for every period of time we consider. Therefore the Universe has an Infinite size. Not only that, we end up with Zeno's paradox in that we can divide any period of time infinitely. IF Time (or even our perception of time) is infinitely divisible, then how do we experience any time at all?

 

No, a fundamental "Timeless Period" is not physically possible.

 

Time is merely the measure of events, or change, or motion, measured against some other events, or change, or motion.

No, all you are saying here is that we measure Time as a ratio between other events. You are not defining Time here. You are only defining an arbitrary measure of time that has nothing at all whatsoever to do with: What Time is.

 

You don’t need time to have motion, you need motion to have time.

So you say, but have yet to prove or even provide a reasonable argument for (that is one that doesn't rely on un-physical situations, incorrect assumptions or confusion between what we are measuring and what we are using to measure it).

[Farsight]

Mr Skeptic: Things have got to move in your brain for you to have thoughts. Electrons, whatever. It's similar for a Turing machine.

 

Edtharan: a neutrino changing into another type of neutrino involves some motion. I say this with confidence because I actually know what a neutrino is. I'm sorry but I find the rest of your very long post somewhat confusing. Please can you raise succinct points.

[Mr Skeptic]

Farsight: So how do you intend to observe a universe with only two objects that are not moving, if your observer is moving? And what about a universe with just one object: a single photon. Would it move?

[Farsight]

Farsight: So how do you intend to observe a universe with only two objects that are not moving, if your observer is moving?

 

With great difficulty. Hence my comment earlier including events within the mechanism of observation. That's why I didn't use the word "observer" with the two-object universe.

 

And what about a universe with just one object: a single photon. Would it move?

 

No.

[Dr. Physics]

in my theory, time is a dimensin that governs change. now if this is true then when space and time is seperate, what is in time? energy, because it has no mass, it is a perfect canadate. but when space and time inter mingle, the whole idea changes, the energy is condesated into matter. so in a nutshell time is an interval of energy

[pioneer]

Change of state, used for measuring time, can also occur, without the use of distance. If we had a light flashing, on-off, but fixed in position, one can also use that to measure time. One may say, we still use distance, because the energy coming from the light has wavelength. But the flash does not change the distance of the wavelength. The only part of the cycle where energy is given off, is when the light is on. If time always had to include distance, in some form or another, that would imply during the off cycle, since no energy or wavelength or distance is being expressed, time would stop.

 

I used to use a variable called time potential, that would express all situations where time and distance are occuring at the same time. When the flash is in the off cycle, no time potential is being expressed. The reference time will still lapse, in this example, but without time potential. The time potential is being conserved until it is expressed again during the next on cycle.

[Edtharan]

'm sorry but I find the rest of your very long post somewhat confusing.

Just because you don't understand something does not mean it is wrong.

 

Please can you raise succinct points.

Ok. The answers to your post are in the top half of this post. The bottom half is a response to Dr. Physics' Post.

 

1) What you use to measure is not the thing you are measuring.

 

2) You stated that it was impossible to determine Time from a single object (as it has nothing to compare any "Movement" against).

 

3) You proposed that Motion (not change as they are different phenomena) create Time. "Motion" and "Change" are not the same thing. Motion involved displacement over a distance, change is to do with the state of an object and does not require any displacement.

 

4) I showed that "Change" without "Motion" is good enough to determine Time with a single Object.

 

a neutrino changing into another type of neutrino involves some motion.

Or how about the decay of one type of particle into another, say a Neutron into a Proton and Electron (or some other type of particle decay). Remember single particles can and do decay without any outside influence, so if one of these particles existed in the Universe, then it's decay can be used as an event to arbitrarily mark time.

 

And what about a universe with just one object: a single photon. Would it move?

No.

Hmm' date=' A photon is an oscillation of the electric and magnetic fields. So if the photon couldn't move, then it wouldn't exists. But if it did exist, then you could use the oscillations of the electric and magnetic fields to mark time.

 

And yes, we are using motion to mark time here. However, remember my point (1) above: What you use to measure is not the thing you are measuring.

 

Although we are using Movement to [i']measure[/i] this does not mean that Time is Movement.

 

Quite the opposite actually. for if that movement didn't occur over a period of time (and remember a number over another number is a division), then there would be no difference between the first event (the first peak of the EM wave) and the second event (the second peak of the EM wave). They would have had to occurred simultaneously. If they occurred simultaneously, then the number we divide by is 0 (simultaneous means a separation of 0 Time), thus we get an answer of infinity.

 

in my theory, time is a dimensin that governs change. now if this is true then when space and time is seperate, what is in time? energy, because it has no mass, it is a perfect canadate. but when space and time inter mingle, the whole idea changes, the energy is condesated into matter. so in a nutshell time is an interval of energy

How do you go from "Time is separate from Space" to "Time is energy"? I don't think you can separate Space from Time (except with words).

 

Also what do you mean by: "a dimensin that governs change"? How does a Dimension "govern" anything?

 

Time is like Space. We can mark out a series of Points along the dimension that allow us to compare other distances along that dimension (but the marks are not the dimension - just a scale). In space we call these Metres and Centimetres. In Time we call these Seconds and Hours.

 

Time seems to be different because we have no control over our motion in it. We move at a constant rate along Time.

 

Compare this with a damaged space ship. Just say it has lateral thrusters working, but no main engines. It could thrust sideways, but not along the direction of travel. It could move freely laterally (X and Y dimensions), but it would have no control over its motion in the forwards direction (the Z dimension).

 

Like that space shop, we have no ability to "thrust" along the direction of Time (the T dimension), but we can thrust freely in the X,Y and Z dimensions.

 

When considering this one has to take into account local and non locale reference frames. According to a local reference frame the dimensions never seem to rotate (as when they do we are rotated along with them). But within a non local reference frame the dimensions can rotate.

 

To make things clearer, let's ignore the Time dimension and only consider 3 dimensions (think of that damaged spaceship). The local reference frame (co-ordinate system) will always have the direction the ship is travelling in as the "Z" dimension. So if it uses it's thrusters to move laterally, then this rotates it's direction of movement. It is now moving sideways a bit. But according to the people on the ship, they are still moving forwards.

 

However, an observer a long distance away from the ship, would see it moving sideways as well as it's forward motion.

 

Now if the people on the ship could measure the distance along what they determine as their Z axis (the "forward" direction) that it was travelling, then they would get one value. However, the distant observers could measure it's motion along what they determines the "Z" axis, then they would get two different result.

 

Remember, the people on the ship always see the Z axis as being the direction that the ship is travelling in, where as the distant observer always sees the Z axis as the direction that the observer is travelling in.

 

Be cause their relative motions are different, they get different measurements for the distance that they have travelled along the Z axis.

 

The difference in their measured travel distances are related. Specifically they are related by how fast they are travelling in the Z dimension according to a stationary observer, or an observer that had a known and constant speed for all observers.

 

They could then use that "third" observer (even if it was a hypothetical observer) and compare their motions to that, and then they could work out a function to "translate" their motion to what the other observer would see.

 

In fact we have such a "Third Observer" in our universe. It is called "Light". It is a known and constant speed for all observers. So we can use this to convert between observers. No wonder the speed of light figures in such calculations.

 

Now the difference between this example/thought experiment is that the people on the space ship have some "width" in the Z dimension. If we don't understand that this is a limitation due to the necessity of the example and our preconceived notion of those kinds of objects, rather than something that points out an error (to use this to disprove it is nothing less than a strawman), then confusion can set in.

 

Because of Newtons 3rd law: "Whenever there is an action there is an equal and opposite reaction", it means that there can't be a real "Width" in the Time dimension (maybe on the Plank scale - maybe) or then we could exert some kind of force (or have some limited freedom of movement along the time dimension).

[Farsight]

Or how about the decay of one type of particle into another, say a Neutron into a Proton and Electron (or some other type of particle decay). Remember single particles can and do decay without any outside influence, so if one of these particles existed in the Universe, then it's decay can be used as an event to arbitrarily mark time.

 

Yes, but the neutron decays because inside it something is moving. If this wasn't the case, it wouldn't decay.

 

A photon is an oscillation of the electric and magnetic fields. So if the photon couldn't move, then it wouldn't exists. But if it did exist, then you could use the oscillations of the electric and magnetic fields to mark time.

 

I agree that if the photon couldn't move we wouldn't recognise it as a photon. We'd think of it as a bump of electromagnetic field variation stuck at some point of the wave cycle. We'd think of it as something akin to an electron or positron. (Of course if all photons were like this we couldn't even see or think). We do use oscillations of the electromagnetic field to mark time. That's why we only measure the speed of light in terms of the speed of light.

 

And yes, we are using motion to mark time here. However, remember my point (1) above: What you use to measure is not the thing you are measuring.

We only measure the speed of light in terms of the speed of light.

 

Although we are using Movement to measure this does not mean that Time is Movement.

I said it's cofounded with motion.

 

Quite the opposite actually. for if that movement didn't occur over a period of time (and remember a number over another number is a division), then there would be no difference between the first event (the first peak of the EM wave) and the second event (the second peak of the EM wave). They would have had to occurred simultaneously. If they occurred simultaneously, then the number we divide by is 0 (simultaneous means a separation of 0 Time), thus we get an answer of infinity.

Movement happens. We see it. Events occur. Light moves. It moves through space inside a caesium atom. We count nine billion movements and call it a second, and use that as "a period of time". But all it really is, is an expression for a distance moved by light. When we measure a speed all we're really doing is comparing it with the speed of light. That's why we always measure the speed of light to be the same. Things move through space, not through time.

[Edtharan]

I agree that if the photon couldn't move we wouldn't recognise it as a photon. We'd think of it as a bump of electromagnetic field variation stuck at some point of the wave cycle.

An here is another major stumbling block for your theory.

 

A photo travelling through space is not interacting with any other objects. If it is not interacting, then how can it determine motion. As far as it is concerned, if it is not interacting, then it is alone in the universe. Therefore, by what you your self said, it ceases to be a photo and becomes a "bump" in the electromagnetic field. This would also apply to any other force carrying particle (bosons).

 

The problem is, that no Fermions (matter) directly interacts. They only interact through the force carriers. But, as soon as a Boson leaves the Fermion, it ceases to be a "Particle" as such and is then just a immobile "bump" in it's "field".

 

This means that there should be absolutely no interactions in the universe as no Boson can travel at all, and so can not therefore interact with another Fermion.

 

We do use oscillations of the electromagnetic field to mark time. That's why we only measure the speed of light in terms of the speed of light.

I don't see the connection between the first sentence and the second. It seems like a Non Sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29).

 

Yes, we can use pulses to an electromagnetic wave to makr out time (and then use that to measure the speed of light). But, we could have just as well used the regular gravity waves from two pulsars orbiting each others. These gravity waves are not electromagnetic, and so if we used them, then we would be measuring the speed of light, not in terms of light, but with pulses of gravity.

 

Just because we currently use a system whereby we use pulses of light to mark out periods of time, does not mean that there is no other way we can mark out periods of time (a swinging pendulum is not an electromagnetic wave and for a long time we used pendulums to measure time).

 

See, this why I keep repeating: "What you use to measure, is not the thing you are measuring". We might be using pulses of light to measure time, but our measure of Time is not dependant on the fact that we are using pulses of light. It is just something that is convenient. It is not fundamental to what Time is.

 

Do not mistake convention for necessity.

 

I said it's cofounded with motion.

I think you might need to explain the exact meaning of "confounded" that you are using here ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/confounded ).

 

If that is the meaning that you are meaning, then you will have to do more explaining on why it must be so. As you are proposing something different to currently accepted theories then the onus is on you for burden of proof (if it was the other way around and your theory was the currently accepted model, then the burden of proof would be on me).

 

Movement happens. We see it. Events occur. Light moves. It moves through space inside a caesium atom. We count nine billion movements and call it a second, and use that as "a period of time".

But it is not the movement of light that is important to our measuring scale. It is the Events of the detected photons that is important. As you even stated in you essay "Time explained" we could just count pebbles thrown into a bucket. It is the event of the detected electromagnetic wave peak (or gravity wave peak, peak of the swing of a pendulum, the "ping" of a pebble hitting the side of a bucket, or the decay of one neutrino type into another). What is not important is what the event is made up of. It is only important that the event occurred.

 

Your entire argument for this is based on the Starwman that it is what the event is made up of that is important as to our definition of time. I can say absolutely that this is completely wrong. The only thing that is important about any kind of event that we use to measure time with is that it occurs (being regular or predictable allows us to have a consistent scale, so that does help).

 

If the event didn't occur, then we could not measure Time at all. It would still exist, but we could not measure it.

 

When we measure a speed all we're really doing is comparing it with the speed of light.

Wrong again. You have jumped from: We use pulses of light to mark out periods of time - to: Periods of time are measuring in terms of the distance light travels in a give time. Again - Non Sequitur.

 

We do not compare Movement to the speed of light. We compare it to a sequence of regular events. It is only convention that we use pulses of light to mark out these periods. It is because we know that the sequence of pulses of EM radiation are regular and predictable. The fact that they are made of light has absolutely, positively no bearing on it. It is just convention and convenience that we use pulses of light. It could be any phenomena, made up of anything, that was regular and predictable.

 

What you are getting confused with is that we measure Displacement in terms of how far light travels in given time (the Light Year), but again, this is just a convention. We could have use how far a car travels moving at 100km/hour as a measure of displacement.

 

Please note that Movement and Displacement are not the same thing. Displacement is a distance in 3 Dimensions. Movement is displacement over a period of time or a Change in position divvied by a period of time - delta D over delta T which is the current physics definition of Movement. If you are using a different definition of movement, then you will have to show (and prove) that it is better than the current definition before you can attempt to use your definition to disprove Time.

[Fred56]

I think this thread might be getting just a tad bogged down with semantics here. Which of those 19th century dudes said "heat is motion"? I haven't seen "entropy" mentioned yet either, which term can mean a few "different" things, but they all use a very similar set of equations.

 

A comment about the dimension of time: we can easily represent time as an axis on a graph or plot, but we know that this is a simplification, because time doesn't increase in any direction, it increases "everywhere", in all directions, as it were, but in a non-reversible or uni-directional way, like entropy. This is a bit of a conundrum. It also slows down for objects (like the ones that collide with the upper atmosphere and produce cosmic rays) that travel at a significant fraction of the speed of light. This means the journey, for them, seems shorter (which is why many of them manage to last the distance, apparently).

[Osiris]

 

I don't see the connection between the first sentence and the second. It seems like a Non Sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29).

 

Yes, we can use pulses to an electromagnetic wave to makr out time (and then use that to measure the speed of light). But, we could have just as well used the regular gravity waves from two pulsars orbiting each others. These gravity waves are not electromagnetic, and so if we used them, then we would be measuring the speed of light, not in terms of light, but with pulses of gravity.

 

Just because we currently use a system whereby we use pulses of light to mark out periods of time, does not mean that there is no other way we can mark out periods of time (a swinging pendulum is not an electromagnetic wave and for a long time we used pendulums to measure time).

 

See, this why I keep repeating: "What you use to measure, is not the thing you are measuring". We might be using pulses of light to measure time, but our measure of Time is not dependant on the fact that we are using pulses of light. It is just something that is convenient. It is not fundamental to what Time is.

 

Do not mistake convention for necessity.

 

If that is the meaning that you are meaning, then you will have to do more explaining on why it must be so. As you are proposing something different to currently accepted theories then the onus is on you for burden of proof (if it was the other way around and your theory was the currently accepted model, then the burden of proof would be on me).

 

But it is not the movement of light that is important to our measuring scale. It is the Events of the detected photons that is important. As you even stated in you essay "Time explained" we could just count pebbles thrown into a bucket. It is the event of the detected electromagnetic wave peak (or gravity wave peak, peak of the swing of a pendulum, the "ping" of a pebble hitting the side of a bucket, or the decay of one neutrino type into another). What is not important is what the event is made up of. It is only important that the event occurred.

 

Your entire argument for this is based on the Starwman that it is what the event is made up of that is important as to our definition of time. I can say absolutely that this is completely wrong. The only thing that is important about any kind of event that we use to measure time with is that it occurs (being regular or predictable allows us to have a consistent scale, so that does help).

 

If the event didn't occur, then we could not measure Time at all. It would still exist, but we could not measure it.

 

Wrong again. You have jumped from: We use pulses of light to mark out periods of time - to: Periods of time are measuring in terms of the distance light travels in a give time. Again - Non Sequitur.

 

We do not compare Movement to the speed of light. We compare it to a sequence of regular events. It is only convention that we use pulses of light to mark out these periods. It is because we know that the sequence of pulses of EM radiation are regular and predictable. The fact that they are made of light has absolutely, positively no bearing on it. It is just convention and convenience that we use pulses of light. It could be any phenomena, made up of anything, that was regular and predictable.

 

What you are getting confused with is that we measure Displacement in terms of how far light travels in given time (the Light Year), but again, this is just a convention. We could have use how far a car travels moving at 100km/hour as a measure of displacement.

 

Hi, I think what Farsight meant was that since light is the limit of what anything can travel, and because of the phenomena that light has which is that regarless of the speed something is traveling at, light will always approach it at the speed of light.

 

So, because of this, time varies in different places. If you have a person measuring time with a clock in a spaceship moving 1/4th of the speed of light... and you have another person with a similar clock measuring time on earth, the person on earth will measure time faster than the person traveling 1/4th of the speed of light. And if they both start to cook 15 minute rice, the person on Earth will finish much faster. And this is assuming that there are no defects on the clocks or microwave.

 

Now since we have these two scenerios, which are measuring time with similar clocks, yet both are inconsitent with each other. The differnece in measurement of time here would be related to the difference in their motion and to that of the speed of light.

[Fred56]

Distance is something we observe as being between things, or objects. Time, similarly is something we observe as being between events, or “messages containing information”.

 

Two rocks on a field have a distance between them. Two events have an interval of time between them. If the rocks didn't have this distance between them, they would be the same rock. If distance (space) didn't exist, all objects would be the same (be at the same place). This object would have no volume (there would be no space to occupy).

 

This non-object is something like that out of which the cosmos sprang, somehow. There was a sudden existence of space and time from literally out of nothing, which continued to expand and which suddenly was supposed to have expanded (inflated) at an almost asymptotic rate until about 3 sec. after the start, or the moment of creation - the first Planck moment of time. It has continued to expand after this first “big bang” until today, 14.5 or so billion years later, where this initial expansive force now seems to be being countered by an even more mysterious “dark” energy.

 

Space itself is being created by this expansion, as the distances between the large collections of objects (galaxies) continues to increase, despite gravitational interactions that cause clustering and grouping of galaxies into vast sheets and filaments. Enormous voids are also created though, and overall, the cosmos continues to expand.

This creative process was not like an explosion, which has objects receding from a common centre. All objects within the created space are receding at a constant rate from each other, relative to distance. This is an overall expansive process, the creation of space itself.

 

As observers within this space, we not only see that we appear to be at the centre of expansion no matter how far out we look, but that the most distant objects have the greatest recession rates from us. This apparently unique view can be explained as above, so that all viewpoints would look like a centre of expansion.

 

We observe that a lot of things are moving around, some in cyclic or repeating patterns. These movements are observable because we “know” that certain images our brains process arrive at different times. We process these images along with inbuilt timers and counters that give us an innate sense of “previous” event and “future” event. That give us our sense of Time. This sense, something all sentient animals with these inbuilt “interval sensors” must have, along with our other external senses, allows us to navigate the environment, to find food and so on. Our sense of time should perhaps be added to the other five that are acknowledged, the others wouldn't work too well without a sense of time.

[Farsight]

A photo travelling through space is not interacting with any other objects. If it is not interacting, then how can it determine motion. As far as it is concerned, if it is not interacting, then it is alone in the universe.

It can't. I said this earlier. See post #104.

 

The problem is, that no Fermions (matter) directly interacts. They only interact through the force carriers. But, as soon as a Boson leaves the Fermion, it ceases to be a "Particle" as such and is then just a immobile "bump" in it's "field"...

Read MASS EXPLAINED. A fermion like the electron is merely a bosonic configuration, a soliton, as evidenced by pair production and anihilation.

 

Yes, we can use pulses to an electromagnetic wave to make out time (and then use that to measure the speed of light). But, we could have just as well used the regular gravity waves from two pulsars orbiting each others. These gravity waves are not electromagnetic, and so if we used them, then we would be measuring the speed of light, not in terms of light, but with pulses of gravity.

What gravity waves? Show me one. There are no gravity waves. They are hypothetical, and I know why they cannot exist. Gravity tides can exist, but not waves.

 

Just because we currently use a system whereby we use pulses of light to mark out periods of time, does not mean that there is no other way we can mark out periods of time (a swinging pendulum is not an electromagnetic wave and for a long time we used pendulums to measure time). See, this why I keep repeating: "What you use to measure, is not the thing you are measuring". We might be using pulses of light to measure time, but our measure of Time is not dependant on the fact that we are using pulses of light. It is just something that is convenient. It is not fundamental to what Time is.

And everything we use to measure time demands some form of motion.

 

I think you might need to explain the exact meaning of "confounded" that you are using here ( http:// http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/confounded ). If that is the meaning that you are meaning, then you will have to do more explaining on why it must be so. As you are proposing something different to currently accepted theories then the onus is on you for burden of proof.

I said cofounded. Not confounded. No problem about burden of proof. That's why we have discussion forums.

 

But it is not the movement of light that is important to our measuring scale. It is the Events of the detected photons that is important. As you even stated in you essay "Time explained" we could just count pebbles thrown into a bucket. It is the event of the detected electromagnetic wave peak (or gravity wave peak, peak of the swing of a pendulum, the "ping" of a pebble hitting the side of a bucket, or the decay of one neutrino type into another). What is not important is what the event is made up of. It is only important that the event occurred.

And for an event to occur, we have to have motion.

 

Your entire argument for this is based on the Strawman that it is what the event is made up of that is important as to our definition of time. I can say absolutely that this is completely wrong. The only thing that is important about any kind of event that we use to measure time with is that it occurs (being regular or predictable allows us to have a consistent scale, so that does help). If the event didn't occur, then we could not measure Time at all. It would still exist, but we could not measure it.

Stop banging on about strawman arguments. It's an an insiduous ad-hominem. If nothing moved, there's no events, and no time. It's really simple.

 

Wrong again. You have jumped from: We use pulses of light to mark out periods of time - to: Periods of time are measuring in terms of the distance light travels in a give time. Again - Non Sequitur.

It really does follow. The hyperfine transition is an electromagnetic event. Light is electromagnetic. That flipflop electron is a 511KeV photon tied into a soliton configuration. It has every bearing on it. And I'm not trying to "disprove" time, just show it for what it is:

 

Time exists like heat exists, being an emergent property of motion. It is a cumulative measure of motion used in the relative measure of motion compared to the motion of light, and the only motion is through space. So time has no length, time doesn’t flow and we don’t travel through it.

 

Please try to be more succinct.

 

Osiris: agreed. The speed of light varies, but this can never me measured locally. Here's an excerpt from something I've written about gravity:

When we look with fresh eyes we see a powerful equivalence between Special Relativity and General Relativity. The equivalence relies on this: time dilation is direct evidence of a reduced speed of light. It is quite trivial to see why. Imagine that I stay here on earth while you travel to Alpha Centauri in a very fast rocket travelling at .99c. We use 1/√(1-v2/c2) to work out that you experience a sevenfold time dilation. We normally think of time dilation as being countered by length contraction, but this only occurs in the direction of travel. Hold up a metre ruler transverse to the direction of travel and it is undoubtedly the same metre. Your metre is the same as my metre, and your time is dilated by a factor of seven, which means it takes a beam of your light seven times longer to traverse your transverse metre. Do not be confused by this. Do not tell yourself that your lightbeam is following a diagonal path and has to cover a greater distance. If you do, you are looking at your situation from my reference frame. You must observe your situation from your reference frame. Reduced to undeniable simplicity, speed equals distance over time, your metre distance has not changed, your time however has, and therefore the speed of light has also changed. Your c is a seventh of mine.

 

Fred: I understand the expansion of the universe. Dark Energy drives it, it doesn't oppose it. Entropy is just sameness, I touch on it in Time Explained with "the Arrow of Beans".

[iNow]

What gravity waves? Show me one. There are no gravity waves. They are hypothetical, and I know why they cannot exist. Gravity tides can exist, but not waves.

Can you please illuminate the key differences for us, and why this is a relevant criticism?

[Fred56]

Reduced to undeniable simplicity, speed equals distance over time, your metre distance has not changed, your time however has, and therefore the speed of light has also changed. Your c is a seventh of mine.

 

You nearly got this right. Actually the speed of light does not change. This is fundamental to Einstein's theories and explains why two observers approaching each other at 0.7c do not see the other approaching at 1.4c, not because light slows down, but because time slows down, geddit? Light slows down when it passes into a different medium, like glass. Someone has managed to slow down light so much that they claim to have "stopped" or "frozen" it altogether BTW.

[ydoaPs]

You nearly got this right. Actually the speed of light does not change. This is fundamental to Einstein's theories and explains why two observers approaching each other at 0.7c do not see the other approaching at 1.4c, not because light slows down, but because time slows down, geddit? Light slows down when it passes into a different medium, like glass. Someone has managed to slow down light so much that they claim to have "stopped" or "frozen" it altogether BTW.

It is important to note that the photons are NOT slowing down here. They are just starting and stopping more often. When light travels through a medium, it gets absorbed and re-emitted by the atoms of said medium. This absorption and emission takes time. The AVERAGE speed of the beam of light lowers, but the INSTANTANEOUS speed of the photons remains constant at the value of c.

[Fred56]

OK. Have you looked at any slow-light or frozen light experiments?

 

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/may/HQ_news_03176.html

[Edtharan]

It can't. I said this earlier. See post #104.

Now, as you said. If that photon is alone in the Universe, then it can not have motion (you said that you need 2 objects for there to be motion).

 

If this is true, then there can be no motion at all and then, by your own reasoning, no Time.

 

If the photons are not interacting, then they can not have motion. If they have no motion, then according to you there is no Time.

 

Now, as this is the results of what you have told us your theory predicts, then we can be certain that your theory is wrong because we can plainly see that there is motion and that objects do interact.

 

Read MASS EXPLAINED. A fermion like the electron is merely a bosonic configuration, a soliton, as evidenced by pair production and anihilation.

That has absolutely no connection with the point I was making. I was saying that Fermions interact through Bosons. Whether Fermions are distinct particles or are actually Boson Solitons makes no difference. Either you have misunderstood what I was saying, or you are trying to twist what I am saying to your own ends.

 

What gravity waves? Show me one. There are no gravity waves. They are hypothetical, and I know why they cannot exist. Gravity tides can exist, but not waves.

Afain, you are either missunderstanding me or are attempting to twist what I was saying. Please note that Gravity waves was just one of the non electromagnetic methods we could use to determine Time. It was an example of the fact that our use of electromagnetic events is just a property of the fact that they are regular and predictable, and easy for use to measure. Nothing less and nothing more.

 

You seem to want to read into it that because we are using EM waves as our yard stick that somehow electromagnetics are somehow a core factor to our concept of Time. It would be akin to saying that because I used a wooden ruler, that distance is actually property of wood.

 

And everything we use to measure time demands some form of motion.

remember that motion is different to change. Motion is due to the displacement of an object (over a period of time - but for this point the time bit is not important). Change is to do with the internal state of an object.

 

But is we had an object that changes state regularly, then we could use that instead of Motion to mark out periods of Time. So, we do not need Motion to measure time. It is just convenient for us to do so.

 

Because how we measure things is dependant on convention and convenience, we can sometime get confused between what we use to measure and the thing we are measuring, especially if the measure is indirect, or something not tangible. This is the mistake you keep making.

 

What we use to measure something with, is not the thing we are measuring. Just because convention and convenience we use EM pulses to mark out periods of time, does not mean that the same EM pulses are representative of what time is made of.

 

I said cofounded. Not confounded.

Ah, right I though perhaps you might have made a typing mistake. This is the problem with using obscure words in a typed medium without face to face contact.

 

However, my point still stands. You do need to explain that a bit better rather than just making a claim.

 

And for an event to occur, we have to have motion.

 

...snip...

 

If nothing moved, there's no events, and no time. It's really simple.

No, we could still have state changes. Because we can have state changes, this means that we can have events that don't rely on motion and thus disproves your point.

 

Stop banging on about strawman arguments. It's an an insiduous ad-hominem.

It is not an ad-hominem. I was attacking what you presented. I was not attacking you.

 

An ad-hominem would be if I was using information about you (which I don't have enough of to even attempt an ad-hominem - unless of course I were to make it up) as an attack on the points you made. It would be like someone saying that because Einstein had messy hair, he was similarly messy with his equation so we couldn't trust the results he got.

 

As you can plainly see that is completely different to what I did. I was pointing out that you had presented an incorrect definition of what is accepted as the current definition of Time, the you disproves the made up version to prove that your theory was better.

 

Yes. Your theory is better than that made up definition. But you haven't even addressed the accepted definition Time. You have not proven anything except that you can disprove your own definition of Time.

 

It really does follow. The hyperfine transition is an electromagnetic event. Light is electromagnetic. That flipflop electron is a 511KeV photon tied into a soliton configuration.

I don't know where to start.

 

Yes. Each sentence here is true. But, you have not shown a link between them and that we use events to mark out Time. IF we used a non EM change of state of an object, are you saying that this kind of event can not be used to mark out a period of Time?

 

If we can use a non EM event to mark out a period of time then there is absolute no link between the fact that we use an EM transition to mark out a period of time and the fact that it is an EM event. The only "link" would be that it was a convention and convenience to use EM events.

 

This causes your theory to break down. You claim that because we (supposedly) use an EM event to mark out Time, that our current definition of time is based on the speed of light, and forms a circular definition.

 

But, if we don't use an EM event to mark out Time, then we are not using light at all in our definition of Time, and so your "disproof" of the current theory does not hold.

 

So, if you are to persist in your claims you have to so that it is not a matter of convenience and convention that we use an EM event to mark out a period of Time. But then this has its own problems for you as if we can't use an internal (non EM state change), then according to you, nothing in the universe could interact and nothing could therefore have anything to compare it's movement (it would be a single particle in the Universe). And, you have said that if there was only a single particle in the Universe, the it would experience no motion and therefore not Time. With no motion however, it could never reach another particle to interact and the universe would grind to a complete halt.

 

So, either Non EM events can be used to Mark out Time, which means that there is no circular reasoning and your disproof of the current definition is false, or the Universe long ago ground to a complete halt.

 

Either you have presented a Strawman, or your theory predicts that we don't exist. I think I know which I'll put my money on

 

Please try to be more succinct.

Ok.

 

You have used an incorrect definition of Time as proof that your proposition is right. Because of that logical fallacy, you have to reassess your entire concept using the correct definition of Time.

 

That succinct enough?

[Spyman]

Got to admire your great stamina and endurance, Edtharan !

 

I think you are worth some reputation points...

[swansont]

OK. Have you looked at any slow-light or frozen light experiments?

 

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/may/HQ_news_03176.html

 

It is important to note that slow light is not the same as slow photons. As yourdad said, there is absorption and emission. In the slow light experiments, the photons are absorbed for longer periods of time.

[YT2095]

Now, as you said. If that photon is alone in the Universe, then it can not have motion (you said that you need 2 objects for there to be motion).

 

If this is true, then there can be no motion at all and then, by your own reasoning, no Time.

 

actually I subscribe to that view also (as much as I hate to take his "side" on this point), there can be no motion if it`s not relative to Something.

and without motion there is no time, as Time is just the periodicity of Change, and there can be no change without Motion.

[Edtharan]

actually I subscribe to that view also (as much as I hate to take his "side" on this point), there can be no motion if it`s not relative to Something.

and without motion there is no time, as Time is just the periodicity of Change, and there can be no change without Motion.

I agree that we can't measure motion if it is not relative to something. But motion is not the only thing with which we can measure Time. We can use an internal state change. This state change is not relative to an other object, but is relative to its self in another time.

 

In a way it is like comparing the position of an object to where it was before. If we have a photograph of a pool ball on one part of a pool table, and then another photograph with it somewhere else on the table we can tell that it has changed its position.

 

If we have an object (just for arguments sake it was the only object in the Universe), and it changed it's internal state. Then that point at which it changed is an event without motion. We can then use that event without motion to mark a point in time. If it changes again, then we have two points marking out a period of time - without movement.

 

Movement is not necessary to mark out events, change is.

 

But then, all we are using that Change for is to mark a point. In space we are familiar with marking points as a measure of space, but we don't think that those points we mark and what the marks are made of as determining what space is. Just as an event marked in Time and what that event is made of does not determine what Time is it is just a way of measuring it.

[YT2095]

well that`s just fine and I have no problem with that as the Singular entity (particle or whatever) then becomes the Universe!

 

how can a State be changed without Movement of any sort?

 

and you said "Compare" too, when the fact is you cannot Compare anything to anything with only one "item"

 

 

can you see my point?

[Farsight]

Edtharan: I replied at length to your long post this afternoon, but had some kind of Internet problem and lost it. I don't feel like doing a long reply again. Please can you pick one subitem to discuss, and then can we move on to the next subitem please.

 

Can you please illuminate the key differences for us, and why this is a relevant criticism?

 

It's related to the way you feel a "tidal" force in a gravitational field. If you move towards a star the tidal force increases. Ditto if the star moves towards you. And if the star is a neutron star in some fast orbit the tidal force will vary in a cyclic fashion. It's getting a little off topic, and it's only relevant because it relies on motion.

 

You nearly got this right. Actually the speed of light does not change. This is fundamental to Einstein's theories and explains why two observers approaching each other at 0.7c do not see the other approaching at 1.4c, not because light slows down, but because time slows down, geddit?

 

It does, Fred. Cross my heart and hope to die. Light slows down. Hence "time slows down". In Special Relativity both observers see the other observer with slowed-down light. It's a trick of perspective. In General Relativity it's no trick. It's absolute. And the man himself said this:

 

"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (eg of light)".

 

I know he said velocity, but he meant speed. If he didn't, what he said translates to "light curves because it bends".

 

Light slows down when it passes into a different medium, like glass. Someone has managed to slow down light so much that they claim to have "stopped" or "frozen" it altogether BTW

 

I can't comment on "stopped light", Fred. But light doesn't slow down when it passes through a transparent medium. It's just got further to go. Trust me on this.

 

Sorry, I guess that's off topic too.

[Mr Skeptic]

I know he said velocity, but he meant speed. If he didn't, what he said translates to "light curves because it bends".

 

Course, you are smarter than Einstein so you correct him. Here is an experiment for you, Farsight. You have two light clocks at rest relative to each other and aligned along the x axis. One light clock is twice as long as the other, and they start off synchronized. Will the light from the short clock bounce for the second time at the same time as the light in the longer clock hits the far end?