Time.

[Fred56]

Time, which doesn't move, or have any dimensions, presents a conundrum when it comes to measurement. How do you measure something dimensionless?

 

Consider what we are actually doing when we "measure" time. If you look at your watch, or (if it has a Swiss movement) hold it up to your ear and listen to it ticking, you are observing a sequence of regular events. These appear regular only because your brain is able to "remember" each tick, and determine, or discriminate, that there is a very close correspondence to each individual "event" and its immediate set of predecessors. We sample these ticks like this until we are confident they are more or less copies of each other, and announce that we have measured time. But is that what has actually occurred? Or is there only one tick, and a string of remembered ones (and imagined future ones)? Only one now and a lot of nonexistent "past" nows?

[pioneer]

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?

 

If you have a blinking singular entity, on-off, its blink frequency gives us time, without distance. We could calibrate our clocks by this. To be able to also calibrate our meter sticks, with something finite, the blink has to appear in two places that are separated a given distance d. There is still only on-off, but both are occurring sequentially, with one side on while the other is off, so our light stays on.

 

If you look in terms of energy output, when there is only time calibration, light only appears half the measured time. When we can calibrate both distance and time, the light is on all the time, due to distance, but only half the time at each side of the distance. There is a build-up of energy.

 

The singularity begins with lights off. It starts to blink on-off causing time to appear. Then it stays on, by including a separation distance. We are building up and almost close to the boom. We have the raw material for the energy. We have the crests-distance of the sine wave but no motion. It needs to accelerate to C.

 

Acceleration is d/t/t. This implies two parts t and one part d. We sort of have that, except the two blinkers are out of phase and therefore not connected in the co-joined way needed for acceleration, i.e., one t is on when the other T is off. To get them both blinking at the same time, we need to build potential further to increase the blink frequency until the on-off gets so fast, that quantum time affects begin to occur. It only has to mess up once, and cause them to synchronize in time, then, BooM.

[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.

Ok. The fact that we can use events other than those that Contain Movement or are Electromagnetic in nature to mark out time.

 

Your who argument rests of the assumption that because we use an EM event (pulses of light in a Caesium atomic clock) then our definition of Time must rely on Electromagnetism (specifically the speed of light).

 

The ticking of a pendulum is a non EM event, but we have been using pendulum clocks for over 100 years.

 

On the point about Movement, as I have already stated a Change is not movement (but movement is change). But we can use Change as an Event to mark out a period of Time.

 

Also keep in mind, that although we use Change to mark out a period of Time, that period is only a scale and not the thing we are measuring. We use a scale on a ruler to mark out distance, but that distance is not the ruler.

[Fred56]

I can't comment on "stopped light", Fred.

 

You mean you might be able to if you spent some time reading about it (which maybe you're too busy to find)?

 

A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position.

 

Einstein appears, to me at least, to be saying that the source's velocity has to be changing (i.e. the light source is accelerating or decelerating) in order for curvature of light to occur. But perhaps I have misunderstood his meaning.

 

Scratch that, he is talking about propagation velocity, i.e. the velocity of light. Not sure what "velocity of propagation ... varies with position" then means. The speed of light varies with position - position relative to what?

[swansont]

Your who argument rests of the assumption that because we use an EM event (pulses of light in a Caesium atomic clock) then our definition of Time must rely on Electromagnetism (specifically the speed of light).

 

The actual oscillation is not an EM pulse, it's a spin flip. The EM pulse starts/stops the oscillation, which puts the electron into a superposition of the two states.

[YT2095]

On the point about Movement, as I have already stated a Change is not movement (but movement is change). But we can use Change as an Event to mark out a period of Time.

 

something like a Binary state then, like a single bit flipping between 1 and 0?

[Farsight]

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?

 

Einstein's my hero Skeptic. For all I know it was some translator at fault. Re your experiment, if you place the light clocks back to back like this: |__||_| and start the pulse at the left of both clocks, then your bounces happen at the same location and the same time for all observers. Note though that there is a problem with "Einstein clock synchronisation", wherein the "time taken" for the light to traverse the smaller clock one way is not necessarily the same time taken to traverse the other way.

 

You mean you might be able to if you spent some time reading about it (which maybe you're too busy to find)?

 

Yes, and some time to explain it properly. Sorry, I'm a bit pushed at the moment.

 

Einstein appears, to me at least, to be saying that the source's velocity has to be changing (i.e. the light source is accelerating or decelerating) in order for curvature of light to occur. But perhaps I have misunderstood his meaning. Scratch that, he is talking about propagation velocity, i.e. the velocity of light. Not sure what "velocity of propagation ... varies with position" then means. The speed of light varies with position - position relative to what?

 

To the earth. Or some similar body. He isn't talking about light sources. He's talking about gravity.

 

The ticking of a pendulum is a non EM event, but we have been using pendulum clocks for over 100 years.

Oh yes it is. A pendulum is made out of atoms. Atoms are made out of electrons and protons and neutrons. These are all "electromagnetic" in nature, as is gravity. I put "electromagnetic" in quotes because there's a deeper truth to this, involving the unification of the forces that explains electromagnetism and basically blows it away like a puff of smoke. I know that sounds incredible, but I mean it.

 

On the point about Movement, as I have already stated a Change is not movement (but movement is change). But we can use Change as an Event to mark out a period of Time.

No. You just can't have a change without a movement. Somewhere somehow, there's always motion.

 

Also keep in mind, that although we use Change to mark out a period of Time, that period is only a scale and not the thing we are measuring. We use a scale on a ruler to mark out distance, but that distance is not the ruler.

All you're measuring is motion, like in Fred's watch with its Swiss "movement", in terms of other motion. The motion of light. And your ruler is, in barest essence, made of light. I've really worked this through, Edtharan. And it is just so beautifully simple.

[BenTheMan]

These are all "electromagnetic" in nature, as is gravity.

 

This statement is patently false. Gravity and electromagnetism have NOTHING to do with each other, other than that they're forces.

 

IF you want, I can show you how Kaluza and Klein tried to GET electromagnetism from gravity (in 1929), and I can show you why they failed.

[Farsight]

This statement is patently false. Gravity and electromagnetism have NOTHING to do with each other, other than that they're forces. IF you want, I can show you how Kaluza and Klein tried to GET electromagnetism from gravity (in 1929), and I can show you why they failed.

 

It isn't false, BenTheMan. They have plenty to do with each other. But note my use of quotes and my comment involving the unification of the forces that explains electromagnetism and basically blows it away like a puff of smoke. You, know, Kaluza/Klein theory was that close to getting it right, but they both missed a trick - you don't need an extra dimension. But let's park that, we're getting off topic.

[swansont]

Feel free to shield gravity the way that magnetic and electric fields can be shielded. You'll make a fortune with the perpetual motion device you can build.

[Farsight]

Come off it, swanson. You've never heard me talking about perpetual motion machines. Antigravity maybe, but that isn't "shielding", and there's no free lunch.

[swansont]

Come off it, swanson. You've never heard me talking about perpetual motion machines. Antigravity maybe, but that isn't "shielding", and there's no free lunch.

 

I never said you did. I challenged you to do things with gravity that we can do with E & M fields, and told you what the result would be if you could.

[Fred56]

Um, this is actually something of a request. I posted something on another thread in Relativity about entropy which went something like:

 

entropy is like a one-way ticket but when you arrive you find out there aren't any return tickets available because where you came from has ceased to exist.

 

Which was shot down with an argument about heat-engines. Can someone explain what's wrong with my metaphor?

[Edtharan]

I put "electromagnetic" in quotes because there's a deeper truth to this, involving the unification of the forces that explains electromagnetism and basically blows it away like a puff of smoke. I know that sounds incredible, but I mean it.

A theory that can not be disproved that unifies all the forces (electromagnetic, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces) would be a major discovery. I have heard of many attempts, but I have yet to hear of one that actually does it. If you have discovered this theory, then present it to a reputable scientific journal and then stand ready for the Nobel Prize.

 

To my knowledge, what you are claiming does not exist (yet). I think that there might be a Grand Unified Theory, but so far you have not presented any evidence of it and so you can not use this in argument.

 

Please stick to "Evidence" rather than "Claims".

 

Oh yes it is. A pendulum is made out of atoms. Atoms are made out of electrons and protons and neutrons.

I'm sorry, but this is really stretching it. Using this same line of reasoning, I could claim that it is because of the Weak Nuclear Force and not Electromagnetics (neutrons and protons are held together by it) and thus disprove that it is electromagnetic in origin.

 

Yes, the Pendulum is made up of Electrons, Protons and Neutrons, but this is not the cause of the event. The event is not even a gravitational event (although it is gravity that causes the event - cause is not effect).

 

The event is an arbitrary, where the pendulum reaches a point high enough in it's swing to flip a gear mechanism, which turn cogs and gears, which turns the hand of the clock.

 

Yes, movement is involved, but that is not important. The fact is that we have used a regular, but arbitrary, event to mark out a point in time. Just as the spin flip involved in an atomic clock is a regular, arbitrary event, or the rotation of the Earth aligning the Sun so that it appears over head is an arbitrary and regular event used to mark out a period of Time (the rotation of the Earth is not EM in origin - it's not even gravitational - it is inertial).

 

All these do involve movement. But we are only using movement as changes, as events. But just as the ink you use to make out points on a ruler do not determine what that ruler is made of, these events and the fact that we used motion as the marker, has nothing to say about what the underlying structure (or origin, or composition) of Time is.

 

The events that we use are just the marks on the ruler. What we use to measure something is not the thing which we are measuring.

 

Events are used to measure Time, they are not what make up time.

 

No. You just can't have a change without a movement. Somewhere somehow, there's always motion.

Well. All movement stops at absolute 0. So does this mean that the hotter something is the faster it is moving through Time? IF motion causes Time, then the amount of Motion must have some influence on Time. Hot objects have more motion in their atoms than cold object, therefore if Motion does determine Time, then hotter objects are experiencing faster Time.

 

But, we know that the faster something moves the slower it appears in Time, this is the opposite of what you are saying. IF we extrapolate from observation and follow your theory, then at 0 movement an object should experience infinite time. Not: No Time.

 

SO your theory when applied to actual observations produces results that do not match with further observations. In other words you theory has no predictive value.

 

The motion of light. And your ruler is, in barest essence, made of light.

And your statement shows that you have completely misunderstood what I was saying.

 

Yes, the Ruler is Made of light and we use the ruler to measure distance. BUT What we use to measure is not the thing we are measuring.

 

You keep making this same mistake again and again. Just because a ruler is made of light does not mean that distance is light.

 

Just because we use an event that includes motion or Electromagnetics to measure Time does not mean that Time is Motion or that it is Electromagnetics.

[Farsight]

A theory that can not be disproved that unifies all the forces (electromagnetic, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces) would be a major discovery. I have heard of many attempts, but I have yet to hear of one that actually does it. If you have discovered this theory, then present it to a reputable scientific journal and then stand ready for the Nobel Prize.

Why thank you Ed. I'm blushing. Look, I'm cutting my replies down a little. Why do you always have to write an essay when you're talking to me? Just deal with one point at a time.

 

To my knowledge, what you are claiming does not exist (yet). I think that there might be a Grand Unified Theory, but so far you have not presented any evidence of it and so you can not use this in argument.

 

Do you want a copy of my paper? PM me and I'll send you one. It should be on the internet soon, maybe later today.

 

Yes, the Pendulum is made up of Electrons, Protons and Neutrons, but this is not the cause of the event. The event is not even a gravitational event...

 

...it's not even gravitational - it is inertial).

 

I don't suppose you remember MASS EXPLAINED? I've moved on a bit since then.

 

All these do involve movement. But we are only using movement as changes, as events. But just as the ink you use to make out points on a ruler do not determine what that ruler is made of, these events and the fact that we used motion as the marker, has nothing to say about what the underlying structure (or origin, or composition) of Time is.

 

Yes it does. Here you go: 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.

 

Well. All movement stops at absolute 0. So does this mean that the hotter something is the faster it is moving through Time?

The atoms move, and they only move through space, not time. Hot atoms do it more.

So your theory when applied to actual observations produces results that do not match with further observations. In other words you theory has no predictive value.

No it doesn't. It most definitely matches observations. Your concept of time allows for moving through time, and time machines, and all sorts of stuff that definitely don't match observations. And it's a toy model, not a theory.

 

And your statement shows that you have completely misunderstood what I was saying. Yes, the Ruler is Made of light and we use the ruler to measure distance. BUT What we use to measure is not the thing we are measuring. You keep making this same mistake again and again. Just because a ruler is made of light does not mean that distance is light.

 

Light defines our time, and light defines our distance. The world is painted in light, Ed. And so is the canvas. It would take me too long to explain it here.

[Blade]

What is time? Some people think of time as a human concept, but to me it seems as if time, to some extent, is woven into the fabric of space. If it weren't, how would space warp time? Someone on the boards(don't remember who) said that time is the direction in which entropy increases. I can't imagine a world without time. If someone/something were to live outside time, what would it be like? Would there still be cause and effect? When I look at it from that perspective, it seems as is time exists only in our heads. :shrug:

 

In my opinion time can best be seen as an line.

U can draw an line on with u can place events.

 

It's like math. Numbers are not real but they are a tool.

 

Time is invented to keep track of past events.

 

When u place an thermometer in smelting ice it's 0. when water boils it's 100. then draw more lines.

 

Same happend with time. night midday and drawing lines. stones and shadows.

[ydoaPs]

Which was shot down with an argument about heat-engines. Can someone explain what's wrong with my metaphor?

 

The problem is entropy CAN go back. If it couldn't, I would be out of a job.

[Fred56]

Right. But I used a travel metaphor, so saying "when you came from has disappeared" kind of destroys the metaphor.

[ydoaPs]

I'll bold the important part.

 

"entropy is like a one-way ticket but when you arrive you find out there aren't any return tickets available because where you came from has ceased to exist."

 

Entropy simply isn't one way. And if the "where" refers to the original state of the system, it should be bold too, as steady state makes my life easier.

[Edtharan]

Why do you always have to write an essay when you're talking to me? Just deal with one point at a time.

The simpler the question the harder it usually is to explain it. Take a complex question: What is the shape of the left handed isomer of the Sucrose molecule?

 

That is fairly easy to answer. A single picture will answer that one.

 

Now take this: Why is it that shape?

 

That is a simple question, but it is harder to answer.

 

So the question is "What is Time?" This means that it is likely to be very hard to answer.

 

Also, because I am using thought experiments to highlight situations where your claims produce strange results, then those thought experiments take up a lot of room.

 

(oh and I don't use l337 sp33k) .

 

It should be on the internet soon, maybe later today.

Sorry, the Internet is not a peer review journal.

 

I don't suppose you remember MASS EXPLAINED? I've moved on a bit since then.

Since "Mass Explained" has not been submitted for peer review, it is not really a good source for reference. If you theory of Time relies on that, then go get that one peer reviewed first before you use it as proof of your Time theory being correct.

 

Remember, if your initial premises are incorrect, the any conclusions you draw from them will also be incorrect. You have not proved your "Mass Explained" yet, so as far as I know it is wrong. As you seem to imply that your Time theory relies on that Mass Explained being correct, then you are building a castle in the clouds with no support (or at best a very unstable and shaky support).

 

Get your foundations right, then "Move on a bit". You don't build a house form the roof down, you build it form the foundations up. You also don't start erecting the walls until your foundations are secure.

 

Yes it does. Here you go: 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.

That is only a claim. You must first prove it.

 

I have been following your essays, and they are a circular argument. It has been going sort of like this: Mass Explained proves what is in Time Explained. Time explained proves what is in Mass Explained.

 

One of the problems you seem to have with the current theories of time is that you think it is involved with circular arguments. But you have done the exact same thing. Also, the fact is that the circular arguments you claim are in the current theory of time are due to a misrepresentation of those theories in what amounts to a Strawman argument.

 

The atoms move, and they only move through space, not time. Hot atoms do it more.

But according to Einstein the faster something moves the slower it will age. You even agree on this fact, although you claim it is only an illusionary effect of motion, it still giving the effect that a clock will appear to run slower if it is moving.

 

So, if the Hot atoms in a clock are causing more movement, then according to you a Hot clock will run slower. If you heat up a clock, it does not run slower.

 

No it doesn't. It most definitely matches observations. Your concept of time allows for moving through time, and time machines, and all sorts of stuff that definitely don't match observations. And it's a toy model, not a theory.

The current theories of Time do allow time travel, but only in very specific circumstances (it's not an everyday occurrence). In fact the situations are so specific, that they might even be physically impossible in this Universe. No wonder we haven't observed them yet.

 

Your theory requires the speed of light to vary. But there are other processes that use the speed of light and aren't related to speed. IF the speed of light varied, then we should see it influence these processes.

 

One of which is the conversion of Matter to energy during Nuclear Fusion in Stars.

 

If the speed of light varied (with motion or gravity), then the spectra given off by these start would be different to what is predicted by a Universe that uses a constant velocity of light. So here we have a testable prediction that differs between your theory and the current theory.

 

However, the current theory perfectly matches with observations, which means that since your theory give a different result in this circumstance, you theory must not be able to predict what is actually observed and therefore your theory must be incorrect.

 

E=MC^2. If M is the same (that is we are using the two different theories to make a prediction about the exact same situation) and we let C vary, then we will get a different value for E than if C was supposed to be a constant.

 

Light defines our time, and light defines our distance.

This is the strawman you keep presenting. The current definition of Distance and Time is not defined by light. We use Light to define the scale of measurement. It is like the fact that the "Foot" as a unit of measurement was defined by the length of some King's foot. Does this mean that the distance from London to Glasgow has lots of Kings standing along it? No. Just because we use Light as a scale (just as the King's foot is a scale), the Distance or Time we measure eith that scale does not mean that what we are using that scale to measure is made up of what the scale is.

 

If you keep using this "proof": That Light some how defines distance and Time, then you are not only just repeating a Strawman, but are doing so knowingly (and therefore are deliberately lying). You have been told that this is an incorrect representation of what really is the actual definition of Distance and Time. No not keep using it.

 

The world is painted in light, Ed. And so is the canvas.

You keep making unsupported claims. Until you provide support for your claims, we can not just accept them.

 

It would take me too long to explain it here.

And yet you ask me to explain why you are wrong in less words. That's unfair.

[Farsight]

Oh, whatever, Edtharan. You ask for explanations, I offer them, you reject them because they're not "peer reviewed", then deliberately smother moot points in your mega-posts whilst accusing me of circular straw man arguments. OK, that's enough, I've given you a fair crack of the whip, again. You can wait until my paper is available. I was mistaken in thinking it might be worthwhile to engage you in dialogue. That's a mistake I won't make again.

[Fred56]

Sorry yourdad, but:

 

entropy CAN go back

 

No. Heat can move around or be transported around a system, but entropy can't “go” anywhere. Perhaps you mean “heat” can “go back” into the system?

 

Entropy simply isn't one way

 

But it is a one-way process, or change. Entropy is not reversible.

 

if the "where" refers to the original state of the system

 

it does, and this can only be “returned” to if the entropy change is zero. To use my travel metaphor, you would still have your ticket, and still be waiting for the "entropy train" to move.

 

You seem to be confusing the physical transfer of heat “back” into the system with the concept of “reverse entropy”. I'm referring to how entropy can't “run” backwards, and my metaphorical conjecture manages to confuse this, I see.

[Edtharan]

You ask for explanations, I offer them, you reject them because they're not "peer reviewed"

No. When I ask for explanations you just point to something that has had doubt expressed as to whether it is true or not and claim that is proof. But when the claim you pointed to is examined, it points to your initial claim (the one we want an explanation for) as proof of its validity. This is circular reasoning.

 

then deliberately smother moot points in your mega-posts

You do know that "Moot" means not (or no longer) relevant? So you are accusing me of smothering something that does not apply to the discussion at hand.

 

And, as I have explained many, many times: It is hard to answer your questions and respond to your posts in a few short words. If all I werre to do is post: "I disagree" then you would not have a chance to understand what my reasons against your claims are.

 

You should be flattered that I take time to answer fully your posts, and not be put off by the fact that they are long. It means that I am taking an interest in what you are doing and what you are proposing.

 

whilst accusing me of circular straw man arguments.

Not just accusations I'm afraid but I have provided evidence to that end as well.

 

You have used strawman arguments right from the beginning and even though we have repeatedly pointed out the same Strawman again and again, you repeatedly use it. This can only be construed as either that you are ignoring what we are saying, or are deliberately using this strawman argument.

 

You keep making the claim that because we are using an EM effect to mark out a period of Time that our definition of Time is inherently based on Electromagnetics. Ever since Time Explained 1.0 this has been pointed out that this is an incorrect view of the current definition of Time and yet you still use it and claim that it is the current definition of Time.

 

You can wait until my paper is available.

When it is published in a peer review journal, let me know.

 

I was mistaken in thinking it might be worthwhile to engage you in dialogue.

I am willing to engage in dialogue, but in a logical manner (no logical fallacies please). Once you stop misrepresenting what is currently understood and accepted, then we can engage in a discussion.

 

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt once again. I will assume that what you think the current theory and definition of Time was taught to you incorrectly. The fact is right from the beginning this concept that you have presented as the current concept of Time has been absolute wrong. Since it is wrong, don't use it or base any conclusions off of it.

 

I have tried (on many occasions) to correct this error, but may be it was that I was not clear enough: The concept of Time that you that you thought was the current concept of Time is completely wrong. What you have been arguing you theory against is not the current concept of Time, but one that either you made up or was taught to you wrongly. Do I need to clear that up at all?

 

That's a mistake I won't make again.

Sorry if I was blunt in my last post, but I have been trying to correct this basic mistake that you are making (that is the misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the current concept of Time) and I was a little frustrated (I am about as frustrated as you seem to be with me).

[Farsight]

Here's my paper Edtharan: http://relativityplus.info

 

Dowload the pdf file, print it, sit down, read it, then you can apologise, and then we'll talk again.

[YT2095]

Here's my paper Edtharan: http://relativityplus.info

 

Dowload the pdf file, print it, sit down, read it, then you can apologise, and then we'll talk again.

 

he`s Already Apologized you Arrogant Numpty!

anyway that links Busted too.