Time Explained

[swansont]

I ignored your post #14 because I took it as an insult saying I don't understand relativity. There was another one at post #17 that I didn't reply to where you said now was meaningless, which I took to be more metaphysics dismissal. If you want a response to these or anything else I'll give it.

 

Hmmm. In #14 I gave both cases, someone who does and someone who does not understand relativity, and you assume it was an insult. You were incorrect, however, in your assessment, or further information was missing. The two observers will not agree on the distance, unless they arbitrarily choose a reference frame from which to measure. But that choice will not be preferred by the physics.

 

"Now" was a metaphysics dismissal. Recognizing that "it's always now" doesn't help you to measure any kind of effect, as far as I can see, nor make any predictions. Which makes its scientific value nil.

 

As for the rest, there are any number of unflawed arguments that are nevertheless not science. I haven't made any other comments on your original post, nor do I intend to.

[mhardin104]

Great towers of logic based on a false premise will fall. You are trying to make something complicated that is very simple. Time is the result of movement in space of anything. No movement no time.

[Farsight]

Swansont, you didn't respond to the first portion of my post. Let me reiterate:

 

You immediately dismissed the essay as semantics, lacking in mathematics. I can't use mathematics to disprove an axiom. You justify your position by talking about "metaphysics of little merit". And in the same breath you rub salt into the wound by talking about "a glimmer of actual physics" and "pointing out the flaws in my argument". You haven't pointed out any flaws, you've dismissed the entirety.

 

That's not scientific discussion. If you want scientific discussion sit down, read the essay properly, ask me for any necessary clarification, then challenge me on any particular point or deduction or conclusion. Quote a paragraph and say why its wrong. Tell me where the argument falls down.

 

You can't or you won't. OK no problem. But don't pretend to all and sundry, or to yourself, that you're the scientist here.

[mhardin104]

Great towers of logic based on a false premise will fall. You are trying to make something complicated that is very simple. Time is the result of movement in space of anything. No movement no time.

[swansont]

Swansont, you didn't respond to the first portion of my post. Let me reiterate:

 

You immediately dismissed the essay as semantics, lacking in mathematics. I can't use mathematics to disprove an axiom. You justify your position by talking about "metaphysics of little merit". And in the same breath you rub salt into the wound by talking about "a glimmer of actual physics" and "pointing out the flaws in my argument". You haven't pointed out any flaws, you've dismissed the entirety.

 

That's not scientific discussion. If you want scientific discussion sit down, read the essay properly, ask me for any necessary clarification, then challenge me on any particular point or deduction or conclusion. Quote a paragraph and say why its wrong. Tell me where the argument falls down.

 

No, it wasn't the same breath, it was a different observation entirely. I denoted that by using an outline to separate the thoughts. It was a general response, in part regarding your dismissive remark about "young Ed" and the implication that nobody here can understand you, and your subsequent accusation that somehow you are being treated harshly. I did not claim to have pointed out any flaws in your original post. I have already said that I choose not to do so, and explained why. You asked me my opinion, and I told you. Your complaint seemes to be based on not getting the answer you wanted.

 

Axioms are regarded as true and not directly disproven, as you state. But if all you have is an axiom (and I'm not sure that's the best description of your thesis), that's only a start. You have to take the next steps, and discuss the implications of the axiom. Einstein didn't stop at "c is constant in all frames," he then went on and showed the implications of that statement, including specific predictions that could be potentially falsified. That's where the science is. Take that step, and then you can have scientific discussions.

[Farsight]

In his response to Godel's paper in the Schilpp volume, Einstein acknowledged that "the problem here disturbed me at the time of the building up of the general theory of relativity." This problem he described as follows: "Is what remains of temporal connection between world-points in the theory of relativity an asymettrical relation (like time, intuitively understood, and unlike space), or would one be just as much justified to assert A is before P as to assert that A is after P? The issue could also be put this way: is relativistic space-time in essense a space or a time."

 

Don't preach to be about where the science is swansont. Science is reading the essay and demolishing it with careful reasoning and incisive logic. Science is doing that little colour perception experiment to grasp the distinction between experience and fundament. Not pronouncing the whole thing metaphysics of little merit and sniping from the sidelines with holier-than-thou quips like a glimmer of physics and where the science is. If you're truly a scientist, if you really are a physics expert, you know what you have to do. It's that simple.

[Edtharan]

I noticed that you have a lot of analogies in the initial post. However, none of the analogies are proven to be strong (thus they form a weak analogy and enter into the False Analogy logical fallacy).

 

The whole argument rests on the analogy that time is a perception like colour. But this is never really demonstrated, it is just claimed. This claim must be supported by evidence (not further analogies).

[Farsight]

I noticed that you have a lot of analogies in the initial post. However, none of the analogies are proven to be strong (thus they form a weak analogy and enter into the False Analogy logical fallacy).

 

Whoa there.

 

You have used a lot of analogies: Agreed.

 

None of the analogies are proven to be strong: Who proves analogies? Not me. They're just analogies to help understanding.

 

Thus they form a weak analogy and enter the False Analogy category: They're just analogies. Who says they're weak? You. Who then says they're false? You. And look at you with your "thus", you're pretending to employ deductive reasoning. Come off it Ed.

 

The whole argument rests on the analogy that time is a perception like colour. But this is never really demonstrated, it is just claimed. This claim must be supported by evidence (not further analogies).

 

No it doesn't. The whole argument is that time is an experience based on motion, like heat. Not a perception like colour. As for evidence, I keep telling you about two clocks colliding. One of these clocks travelled fast and far though space, and has experienced less time, but you insist it has "travelled" in time even though both clocks collide at the same time. It's so blindingly obvious. So crushingly simple. But you refuse to acknowledge the evidence I give, and you're blind to the lack of evidence for your own view.

 

Ed, this is the most important essay you will ever read on a bulletin board. In a while it won't be on a bulletin board. It'll be in magazines. It will be on TV. It will become accepted mainstream science. People will win prizes. This is what Einstein thought. It isn't crackpot nonsense. Unconvince yourself that it is.

[Edtharan]

As for evidence, I keep telling you about two clocks colliding. One of these clocks travelled fast and far though space, and has experienced less time, but you insist it has "travelled" in time even though both clocks collide at the same time. It's so blindingly obvious. So crushingly simple. But you refuse to acknowledge the evidence I give, and you're blind to the lack of evidence for your own view.

But it is not at the same time. On one clock they crash at (for example) 5 hours after one of them left, and the other at 4 house and 59 minutes after they left. This is not the same time according to the two clocks. Are you saying that the clock that was moving just has its mechanics slowed down?

 

If it has "experienced" a different amount of time than the clock at rest, then it must have travelled through time faster than the clock that remained at rest or they would show the exact same time.

 

See you are seeing an absolute frame of reference for time (ie: that the clock at rest show the absolute frame of reference), and that the clock that was moving just experienced "less" time.

 

But I ask you, why did the moving clock experience less time if there is an absolute frame of reference? With an absolute time you can't experience "less time" as that would violate the ":absolute Time" hypothesis. Thus you argument is self contradictory.

 

The only other possibility is that there is no "Absolute" reference for time and each object experiences its own time and there fore the clocks collide with each other at their own respective "Now"s. One of which was 5 hours after the left, the other was at 4h 59m after they left. The term "Now" does not have any meaning unless you refer to it in an Space-Time metric (which takes into account your frame of reference - that is moving or stationary).

 

This is backed up by observation. Certain particles have very short lifetimes. This means that they only can exist for a short period of time before decaying into other particles. Some of these are only fractions of a second.

 

Now when these are accelerated to near the speed of light, they remain for much longer before decaying. This indicated that from our farm of reference their time is stretched out. But from their frame of reference our time is speeded up and they experience normal time.

 

From their frame of reference they do not have an extended life time, they last the same as they would if they were not moving. But from a stationary frame of reference they do have an extended life time.

 

Here is a trick question: Which of these frames of reference represents your absolute frame of reference? Or another way of putting it: Which one is the correct frame of reference?

 

The answer is that neither is, because what was observed can not possibly be reconciled with an absolute frame of reference.

 

Now can only exist as an absolute frame of reference or it only applies to the individual objects and that "Now" for one object does not have to match the "Now" of any other object.

 

Time travel is not the "Pop-in Pop-out" as portrayed in Science fiction movies like "Back TO The Future". While time travelling you would not disappere from the universe. You would remain in it and be seen by others in the universe. If you were travelling forwards in time (by accelerating), then you would appear (from a stationary observer) to have slowed down. From your perspective, you would see the rest of the universe speed up. You would still be influenced by object in the universe (so if someone threw a ball at you you would still be hit by it) and you can still effect things in the universe (you can throw the ball back).

 

The "pop-in Pop-out" would only apply to a universe with an absolute from of time, a universe (like ours) this would not be what occurs (and matches with observation).

 

Who says they're weak? You. Who then says they're false? You. And look at you with your "thus", you're pretending to employ deductive reasoning. Come off it Ed.

Neraly all analogies are true (for a given value of true). Take for example this one: A Desk is like a Raven.

 

This might not seem true, but it is. A desk is like a raven because Edgar Allen Poe both Wrote on them (that is a crow is a subject that Poe wrote about and a desk is something he would have written on).

 

So no analogy is wrong. But the above analogy is weak because it is not a close correlation. In the same line, no analogy it true either because if it was 100% true, then it would not be an analogy.

 

The reason that you have been using weak analogies is that you equate colour as a perception and our experience of time as perception. However Time, in the scientific sense, is not based on our perception of it and scientists have gone out of their way to eliminate human perception form the measurement of time. Thus the analogy of perception make it a very weak analogy.

 

The whole argument is that time is an experience based on motion, like heat. Not a perception like colour.

Then why use colour perception as an analogy?

 

Take this extrcat from your initial post:

What is Time? Let’s start by looking up the definition of a second:

 

"Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K…”

 

OK, a second is nine billion periods of radiation, of light. Now, what’s a period? We mentioned light, so let’s have a look at frequency:

 

Frequency = 1 / T and

 

Frequency = v / λ

 

Flipping things around, I see that period T is wavelength λ divided by velocity v.

 

A wavelength is a distance, a thing like a metre:

 

“The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second...”

 

And a velocity is a distance divided by a time. So:

 

A period T is a distance divided by a distance divided by a time. That’s a another period, another time. OK, so that definition of time is circular. We can’t see the empirical fundamental definition. The axiom warning light is flashing, so let’s look at frequency again:

 

Frequency is the measurement of the number of times that a repeated event occurs per unit of time.

 

And the penny drops. We measured nine billion oscillation events and then we defined that as a second. We counted events. We counted motions.

You call event Motions. In thie example you posted, you conceed that we are measureing events (ther detection of a particle of radiation. I see no motion in that event.

 

The event is an instantaneous occurrence. We didn't detect a particle, then we did. There was no mention of movement there.

 

Sure the particle can be described by its motion, but the detection of the particle did not involve any movement (or measurement of movement), it did not even involve time. Before the detection t was not detected and after the detection it was. The detection took no time (what occurs before and after the detection is something else).

 

So we are measuring a series of events (detections of photons). An event in relativity has a very specific meaning too: It means a point in a 4 dimensional space-time. That is a 4 dimensional coordinate like X: 10m, Y 20m, Z 2m, T:15seconds past 10:00 on Thursday morning 16th November 2006AD.

 

now what the experiment that detected the photons to determine time did, was to call the count of 9,192,631,770 of these events 1 second. So if a machine is set up, every time 9,192,631,770 of these events are detected, it move the second hand of a clock 1 step.

 

So we know (from experiment and theory) that these events occur regularly and predictable, so we use them to mark the passage of time.

 

There is no movement, as events are very specifically a point (movement would at least in dome direction be a line). We can then plot a line between these points and compare an other series of events against them (say the oscillations of an electro/magnetic field: aka a photon) and use the number of events that occurred and how far it has travelled to calculate the what we call the wavelength.

 

You think of time as a length:

 

Q: How long will it take to get to London?

A: What do you mean long?

The reason we think of time in terms of length is because that is exactly what it is. It is not length as in a spatial dimension, but as in a 4th dimension.

 

A dimension is a direction of measurement that is perpendicular to all other directions of measurement. For instance:

 

If we start out at a point (which is 0 dimensional but can exist within a N-Dimensional space and described as a single coordinate), then we can use the distance in front of us as the First Dimension (X). Next we take the distances to the left and right of us as the Second Dimension (Y). Now we take the space above (and below) us as the Third Dimension (Z).

 

From what else here can we plot a series of points along to call a dimension that is not a combination of 2 or more of these spatial dimensions. Well we could plot the points of a series of detections of photons in an atomic clock. This gives us a measurement that is not a combination of the previous 3 and is in a straight line (ie you can't have 5 seconds and 2 seconds to the left). So what we have here , according to the mathematical requirements, is a dimension. As we were measuring Time, we will use time as a label. So the Fourth Dimension is Time (T).

 

And as a line between any two points is called a distance, we use distance when referring to a line drawn between any two points along the 4th dimension. So there is no error here at all.

 

Now you might be taking the numbering of the dimensions all wrong. Time might actually be the first dimension, but it doesn't matter as all dimensions are independent of the others, so the labels we give them are purely a human label and express nothing about the fundamental nature of them.

 

This explanation of time has nothing to do with human perception. It uses established mathematical definitions and does not contradict any previous observations.

 

Ed, this is the most important essay you will ever read on a bulletin board. In a while it won't be on a bulletin board. It'll be in magazines. It will be on TV. It will become accepted mainstream science. People will win prizes. This is what Einstein thought. It isn't crackpot nonsense. Unconvince yourself that it is.

I am willing to "unconvinced" my self, but you have not provided sufficient evidence that what you present actually fits with observation that have been made (ie time dilation/travel). So although i am willing to be unconvinced, you explanation is far less convincing than current theory.

 

An Einstein's whole theory was to prove that there was no absolute frame of reference, where as your theory requires it. Therefore I do not think that Einstein, as you claim, actually think that.

 

Time is real (we can measure it). It is as real as the direction "Forward" it is as real as the direction "Sidewards" and as real as the direction "Upwards".

 

It is a direction of measurement that is perpendicular to all other directions of measurement and we can plot straight lines along it and it can be used to specify a point at which an event occurs (time and place).

[Spyman]

Ed, this is the most important essay you will ever read on a bulletin board. In a while it won't be on a bulletin board. It'll be in magazines. It will be on TV. It will become accepted mainstream science. People will win prizes. This is what Einstein thought. It isn't crackpot nonsense. Unconvince yourself that it is.

Nominated for the post of the week.

[Farsight]

That's a long post Ed. Let's see now:

 

But it is not at the same time.

 

It was at the same time. They didn't miss each other by a minute. BANG, they collided, clock 1 didn't hit clock 2 before clock 2 hit clock 1, whatever their readings said.

 

On one clock they crash at (for example) 5 hours after one of them left, and the other at 4 house and 59 minutes after they left. This is not the same time according to the two clocks. Are you saying that the clock that was moving just has its mechanics slowed down?

 

Basically yes. The clock that was moving had its mechanism "slowed down" because the lateral motion of its photons/atoms/electrons had to cover the forward travelling motion. Look at the triangles in this "time dilation" article:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

 

If it has "experienced" a different amount of time than the clock at rest, then it must have travelled through time faster than the clock that remained at rest or they would show the exact same time.

 

No Ed. It experienced a different amount of time. I hope we can all agree on that. But your "must" is plucked out of the air. There's no "must" about it. Your "must" presumes that time is a dimension you can travel through, rather than a dimension that is merely a measure of events and motions.

 

So you are seeing an absolute frame of reference for time (ie: that the clock at rest show the absolute frame of reference), and that the clock that was moving just experienced "less" time. But I ask you, why did the moving clock experience less time if there is an absolute frame of reference? With an absolute time you can't experience "less time" as that would violate the "Absolute Time" hypothesis. Thus your argument is self contradictory.

 

I never said anything about any Absolute Frame of Reference. So how you can use this to say my argument is self-contradictory I don't know. What I'm saying is that all frames of reference are subjective, because time is an experience derived from motion rather than a fundamental property. If all frames are subjective, none are objective, and no absolute frame of reference is objective either.

 

The only other possibility is that there is no "Absolute" reference for time and each object experiences its own time and there forethe clocks collide with each other at their own respective "Now"s. One of which was 5 hours after the left, the other was at 4h 59m after they left. The term "Now" does not have any meaning unless you refer to it in an Space-Time metric (which takes into account your frame of reference - that is moving or stationary).

 

See above re Absolute Frame of Reference. Now does have meaning. It has crucial meaning. It's the only place "in time" that there is. And regardless of your time experience, there is only now. That means time travel is impossible.

 

This is backed up by observation. Certain particles have very short lifetimes. This means that they only can exist for a short period of time before decaying into other particles. Some of these are only fractions of a second...

 

Yep, I know about muons. I'm not disputing Special Relativity. I'm arguing for the correct interpretation of it. OK I'm at work, so I'll have to respond to your other points later.

[Edtharan]

I never said anything about any Absolute Frame of Reference. So how you can use this to say my argument is self-contradictory I don't know. What I'm saying is that all frames of reference are subjective, because time is an experience derived from motion rather than a fundamental property. If all frames are subjective, none are objective, and no absolute frame of reference is objective either.

No, you didn't explicitly state it, but you interpretation does imply it and can not be true without a universal frame of reference. That is unless your argument is about the semantics what "Time Travel" means.

 

Also you use "motion" to support your claim that time does not exist. However Motion requires time to exist. Motion is distance travelled over a period of time. Therefore motion proves time exists and is not in our minds. Distance doesn't require time and one can talk about the distance between two locations without time, but if you were to travel (that is have motion) between them, then time must exist as a fundamental property of the scenario you are discussing (in this case the universe). If you have motion, there is no what that time can not exist, just like you could not discuss it without distance.

 

Time is as fundamental to a universe that has "motion" as is the distance that the objects move. It is not perception, it is not a way of thinking, it is fundamental to the existence of anything called motion. It is not caused by it. Motion is totally dependent on the existence of time, so time is more fundamental than motion and can not be cause by motion.

 

No Ed. It experienced a different amount of time. I hope we can all agree on that. But your "must" is plucked out of the air. There's no "must" about it. Your "must" presumes that time is a dimension you can travel through, rather than a dimension that is merely a measure of events and motions.

Events, as I stated are coordinates in space-time, a 4 dimensional coordinate. A series of these marks out a line in space time. If we then ignore the 3 spatial dimensions, then we are still left with a dimension unaccounted for. We call this time.

 

Een in normal language it is impossible to refer to an event without the reference of time. It is an essential part of locating it. It is a fundamental property of what we call an event.

 

Dimension literally means "Direction of measurement", if we can make measurement on it and it is perpendicular (that is at 90 degrees to) all other dimensions, then it is a dimension.

 

As Time is a fundamental coordinate (ie measurement) of an event, and it is perpendicular (you can't create that direction through the use of any or all other dimensions - a result of being perpendicular), then it classifies as a dimension in its own right.

 

And as I explained earlier, Time is a fundamental property when discussing motion and can not be created by it. Therefore you theory can not be true (you claim that time is a result of motion and not a dimension at all).

 

There is no way that you can discuss an event without reference to time and no what that you can discuss motion without reference to time. Time is a fundamental property of both of these and therefore can not be created by either of them.

 

See above re Absolute Frame of Reference. Now does have meaning. It has crucial meaning. It's the only place "in time" that there is. And regardless of your time experience, there is only now. That means time travel is impossible.

Now that is a reference to an absolute frame of reference as your "now" can be different to my "now" (as per relativity). If there is only 1 place in time that can be considered "Now" that is an absolute frame of reference and that is what I am saying is necessary for your theory to be true and you are agreeing with me on it.

 

If this is not what you are implying, then all you are talking about is the semantics of "Time" rather than an actual explanation of time.

[Farsight]

No, you didn't explicitly state it, but you interpretation does imply it and can not be true without a universal frame of reference. That is unless your argument is about the semantics what "Time Travel" means.

 

I didn't say anything about an absolute reference frame in the essay, so it's wrong of you to say I said it or even implied it, and then use that to try to disprove what I did actually say. And my argument is there is no time travel. There's no semantics in that. But you keep talking about time dilation as if it's time travel, so if anybody has a problem with their semantics it's you.

 

Also you use "motion" to support your claim that time does not exist. However Motion requires time to exist. Motion is distance travelled over a period of time. Therefore motion proves time exists and is not in our minds. Distance doesn't require time and one can talk about the distance between two locations without time, but if you were to travel (that is have motion) between them, then time must exist as a fundamental property of the scenario you are discussing (in this case the universe). If you have motion, there is no what that time can not exist, just like you could not discuss it without distance.

 

No. Motion is the fundamental thing that is there, not time. That's the whole point of the essay. You flatly deny this then use it to try to disprove the essay. That's no proof at all. It's like me declaring 1+1=3 and then saying I therefore disprove 1+1=2.

 

Time is as fundamental to a universe that has "motion" as is the distance that the objects move. It is not perception, it is not a way of thinking, it is fundamental to the existence of anything called motion. It is not caused by it. Motion is totally dependent on the existence of time, so time is more fundamental than motion and can not be cause by motion.

 

No. Motion is motion. Or more properly velocity, expressed in the same fundamental units as c. You measure it using space and time, but your experience of time depends on your own motion through space. A photon travelling at c experiences no time. As far as the photon is concerned, its speed is infinite. And whilst there's no time for the photon, there are events.

 

Events, as I stated are coordinates in space-time, a 4 dimensional coordinate. A series of these marks out a line in space time. If we then ignore the 3 spatial dimensions, then we are still left with a dimension unaccounted for. We call this time.

 

Events are events, not coordinates. Sure you can assign numbers to mark out the position of events in space. These numbers are coordinates. You can move at will from one space coordinate to another. You can assign a fourth number to denote the event in your experience of time, but it's not a coordinate. You cannot move at will to a new time coordinate.

 

Even in normal language it is impossible to refer to an event without the reference of time. It is an essential part of locating it. It is a fundamental property of what we call an event.

 

Yes, we refer to time when we describe an event. But in the cylinder and the nail A happens before B, or B happens before A depending on your viewpoint. The event sequence depends on whether you're riding a moving cylinder or a moving nail. That means it's subjective, and is therefore not a fundamental property of the event. See my Einstein quote on this a few posts back.

 

Dimension literally means "Direction of measurement", if we can make measurement on it and it is perpendicular (that is at 90 degrees to) all other dimensions, then it is a dimension. As Time is a fundamental coordinate (ie measurement) of an event, and it is perpendicular (you can't create that direction through the use of any or all other dimensions - a result of being perpendicular), then it classifies as a dimension in its own right.

 

Look it up Ed. A dimension is a measured property, not a measured direction. And ask yourself where "perpendicular" comes from here. Nowhere.

 

5. Physics: A physical property, such as mass, length, time, or a combination thereof, regarded as a fundamental measure or as one of a set of fundamental measures of a physical quantity: Velocity has the dimensions of length divided by time.

 

And as I explained earlier, Time is a fundamental property when discussing motion and can not be created by it. Therefore you theory can not be true (you claim that time is a result of motion and not a dimension at all).

 

Again you're making a flat assertion then trying to use it disprove the essay.

 

There is no way that you can discuss an event without reference to time and no what that you can discuss motion without reference to time. Time is a fundamental property of both of these and therefore can not be created by either of them.

 

We've covered this already.

 

Now that is a reference to an absolute frame of reference as your "now" can be different to my "now" (as per relativity). If there is only 1 place in time that can be considered "Now" that is an absolute frame of reference and that is what I am saying is necessary for your theory to be true and you are agreeing with me on it. If this is not what you are implying, then all you are talking about is the semantics of "Time" rather than an actual explanation of time.

 

I've already said there's no absolute frame of reference when it comes to time. See previous post. There is "no one place in time" because there is no fundamental time. My now is not different to your now, because when we collide we collide now. I don't collide with you before you collide with me, whatever our clocks say. I'm not talking semantics, you are. I explained time, you refuse to accept it because you're still clinging to the groundless axiom that time is a length. And you're using this as some kind of proof. It doesn't work Ed. Read the essay again. Properly. This time with an open, scientific mind. It is what Einstein thought.

[Farsight]

And if and when you get back to me, please try to keep it short. Take your bestest, most crucial telling point of superior logic, and use it to point out the flaw in TIME EXPLAINED. That's science Ed.

[Edtharan]

Ok I'll keep this short.

 

No. Motion is motion. Or more properly velocity,

And

 

physics: A physical property, such as mass, length, time, or a combination thereof, regarded as a fundamental measure or as one of a set of fundamental measures of a physical quantity: Velocity has the dimensions of length divided by time.

*Note: emphasis (bold) is mine.

 

So, by your own admittance, motion is velocity and velocity is distance divided by time. This goes from less fundamental to more fundamental.

 

So in this if we eliminate time as being a fundamental property, we have:

 

Motion is velocity and velocity is distance.

 

This does not make sense. If velocity is just distance, then why do we use velocity at all? You can not have the current definition of velocity without the property of time. Time is therefore more fundamental than velocity (motion) as time can exist without the need for motion (there is no description of time that requires motion), but there is no description of motion that can not be made without using time.

 

As motion can not exist without time and time can exist without motion, then time must be more fundamental than motion.

 

Look it up Ed. A dimension is a measured property, not a measured direction. And ask yourself where "perpendicular" comes from here. Nowhere.

It is a fundamental property of what we call a dimension. Try it. Create a dimension that is not at 90 degrees (perpendicular) to all others (say a 3rd dimension that is at 45 degrees from both the X and Y planes). You will find it is a redundant measurement as any point along it can be defined by the properties of the original 2 planes (X and Y).

 

The 3rd dimension, so as not be able to be describes as a set of coordinates along both the X and Y planes, must be perpendicular to all other planes. It is from this geometrical necessity that I make the claim that a dimension must be perpendicular to all other planes.

 

I am not a mathematician, so I can not give you the mathematical "proof" that explains this, but you should have learnt such basic geometrical principles in Primary/Grade school.

[Farsight]

You've got to be kidding Ed. That's a dictionary definition. You know it's not my definition. You know what I said: velocity is fundamental, your velocity as compared to c dictates your time experience, ergo velocity is fundamental, time isn't. Yes time is a dimension because it's a measure, like temperature is a measure, but it's not a dimension you can move in. Yes you can do useful mathematics by considering it to be perpendicular to the spatial dimensions, but that's only maths. It isn't really perpendicular. It's got as much direction and perpendicularity as the set of integers.

 

Now stop pretending I said things I didn't in order to launch "straw man" attempts to discredit my argument.

 

It is a fundamental property of what we call a dimension. Try it. Create a dimension that is not at 90 degrees (perpendicular) to all others (say a 3rd dimension that is at 45 degrees from both the X and Y planes). You will find it is a redundant measurement as any point along it can be defined by the properties of the original 2 planes (X and Y).

 

Ed. Did you skip over the bits of dictionary definition that busted your axiomatic doctrine? Here is again. Look it up on google yourself.

5. Physics: A physical property, such as mass, length, time, or a combination thereof, regarded as a fundamental measure or as one of a set of fundamental measures of a physical quantity: Velocity has the dimensions of length divided by time.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=dimension%3Adefinition&meta=

 

Try arguing about the geometrical necessity of mass. And please don't try the Grade School insults. Try logical, honest, reasoned scientific debate instead.

[insane_alien]

farsight, just cos its a dictionary does that mean that it can't have the scientific definition of velocity?

 

Just as little side here, if velocity is not measured in displacement divided by time then what is it measured in?

[Edtharan]

That's a dictionary definition.

Well naturally, since dictionary definitions are supposed to be what defines what a word means.

 

You know it's not my definition.

Ok so you are proposing a different usage of the word. Well, what is you definition of both time and velocity that is unambiguous and can be used to make logical predictions and that those prediction can then be tested against observed phenomena.

 

Rewriting the scientific and mathematical definitions of both velocity and dimension is a big undertaking and must present us with a logically consistent, mathematical and scientific concept based on established and proven mathematical axioms.

 

What you seem to be proposing is just a semantic redefinition of these concepts.

 

You argue that we can measure temperature and that we can also measure time, so time and temperature must have the same reality, and since we don't refer to temperature as a dimension then we can remove time as a dimension. However we also measure distance, so does this eliminate what we call the 3 spatial dimensions as dimension too?

 

You know what I said: velocity is fundamental, your velocity as compared to c dictates your time experience, ergo velocity is fundamental, time isn't.

But what is C. It is distance (~300,000) divided by Time (1 second). Time is a fundamental property of C. Therefore Time is more fundamental than C. C its self is just a velocity.

 

The core of relativity was that time is a dimension. In fact it is so central to relativity, that without it, relativity does not work. The major breakthrough the Einstein had was when he realised that Time was a dimension perpendicular to all the dimensions of space.

 

but it's not a dimension you can move in.

If you are free falling into a black hole, can you freely moving in the vertical spatial dimension? No. Does this mean that that dimension does not exist? Again: No.

 

Take a photon. It is moving at the speed of light. That means that the spatial dimension in the direction of motion is reduced to 0. Therefore that photon can not move freely in that dimension. Does that mean that there is not 3 dimensions? Yet again: No.

 

Not being able to freely move in a dimension does not mean that it does not exit. If you are going to prove that Time is not a dimension, then you will need some other reason as that one can not be used to prove that some thing does not exist as a dimension.

 

Now stop pretending I said things I didn't in order to launch "straw man" attempts to discredit my argument.

I am not straw manning you arguments. I am attempting to show that the initial claims you have made (ie that time is not a dimension and that velocity is more fundamental than time) are false.

 

The logic is simple: If a product is the result of components, then that produce must be less fundamental than its components.

 

Velocity is the result of the components of time and space (distance), then the components (time and space) must therefore be more fundamental than the resultant: Velocity.

 

There is no straw man there. You made the claim that time is less fundamental than velocity. And the logic above disproves it. Can you find fault with my logic?

 

Let’s go over it again. Motion is a change of place in space.

Here is another incorrect claim in your initial post (and again it is in line with the other mistakes). A "change of place" is not motion, it is displacement. Motion is displacement that occurs over a period of time.

 

So if you are using a definition of Motion that is different from the accepted definition of motion but is exactly the same as another definition called displacement, then what you are doing is arguing semantics, not science.

 

Ed. Did you skip over the bits of dictionary definition that busted your axiomatic doctrine? Here is again. Look it up on google yourself.

5. Physics: A physical property, such as mass, length, time, or a combination thereof, regarded as a fundamental measure or as one of a set of fundamental measures of a physical quantity: Velocity has the dimensions of length divided by time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_%28physics%29

 

Velocity is a vector (but speed is the scalar for velocity). Mass is a scalar. Scalars are not a dimension. Temperature is a scalar.

 

Scalars, when multiplied or divided with a vector only change the magnitude of the vector.

 

If you multiply or divide a distance by Time, you change the vector, not just increase its magnitude. Therefore Time is not a scalar.

 

You measure a displacement along a dimension. A vector is the resultant of displacement in one or more dimensions.

 

Distance is the vector/displacement in space.

 

Velocity is a vector with the components of displacement in space over (that is divided) by a displacement in time. Therefore Velocity is a Vector in Space-Time.

 

You can arrange the formulas to derive a period of time (the displacement in time) from velocity, but this does not mean that velocity is more fundamental than time. You can arrange those same equations to derive space from velocity, but you are not arguing that space is a result of motion (which you would have to do to maintain any consistency in your theory).

 

You can't, with a theory, just arbitrarily limit the mathematical effects of it because it does not sit with your aesthetic expectations. The maths for the calculations of space have been mathematically proven to be the same as time. So if you propose a theory that changes the maths of time, then either you have to show mathematically that the maths that govern Time are different to the Maths that govern Space, or accept that the theory that you propose applies equally well to all result of the effects mathematics (in this case it applies to space as well as time).

 

As we can plainly see that space exits, you must therefore, to avoid this inconsistency in your theory, mathematically prove that time either does not exist, or is not governed by the same mathematics as space. You have made the claim that time does not exist, but have not provided the mathematical proof of this.

 

The cylinder is the same length as the body of the nail. At the far end of the cylinder there's a sheet of paper stretched across it like a drumskin. If you were to slide the nail into the cylinder, the pointy end of the nail just touches the paper, but it doesn't penetrate because the head of the nail is too wide to fit into the cylinder.

 

You mount collision detector A on the head end of the cylinder, and collision detector B on the paper end of the cylinder. Now with a very special gun, you can fire the nail at the cylinder, or the cylinder at the nail, and monitor your collision detectors.

 

From the cylinder's perspective, the nail is a shortened spike. So the first detector to fire is A at the front end of the cylinder. The nail doesn't stop (in reality we're talking gamma-ray plasma jets here) so detector B at the paper end fires later.

 

From the nail's perspective, the cylinder is a flattened doughnut. The first detector to fire is B at the paper end. Detector A at the front end of the cylinder fires later.

I just noticed the big error in this example. In this example the two frames of reference are not equal. In the example, the nail undergoes acceleration where as the cylinder does not.

 

The conclusions, therefore can not be the same for both the cylinder and the nail.

 

The nail, because it has undergone acceleration, experiences the contraction of length in the direction of travel, so not only will the cylinder appear shortened, but so will it. It will collide with both the bottom of the cylinder and the top at the same time (as both it and the can will have undergone the same length contraction).

 

The cylinder on the other hand has not undergone acceleration and so will see a different frame of reference. That is it will have see the "clock" on the nail slowed down, but not length contraction. Therefore it will detect the collision with the point and the head of the nail at the same time.

 

There is no contradiction it is just that the fact that the nail has undergone acceleration and the cylinder hasn't (putting them in different frames of reference) was not taken into account.

[Farsight]

insane_alien: sure it can. But my TIME EXPLAINED essay says it's the wrong way of looking at it.

 

edtharan: explain the geometrical necessity of mass. Don't try to white out your fatal error with a blizzard of other stuff.

[insane_alien]

If you don't believe me, if you think I'm wrong, show me the maths. But make sure you kick t out of all of your equations.

 

wouldn't 't' be required to prove you wrong? as in t=(something) thats a bit like saying prove the existance of water but make sure you don't include water in any of the reactions.

[Farsight]

Ok so you are proposing a different usage of the word. Well, what is your definition of both time and velocity that is unambiguous and can be used to make logical predictions and that those prediction can then be tested against observed phenomena. Rewriting the scientific and mathematical definitions of both velocity and dimension is a big undertaking and must present us with a logically consistent, mathematical and scientific concept based on established and proven mathematical axioms.

 

I've given you the essay, and I've said velocity should have its own c-based units, like temperature has degrees. I can't give a mathematical definition of the degrees we use in temperature. Nobody can. They are definitive. And even if I could, I couldn't base it on proven mathematical axioms, becuase axioms aren't proven. They're axioms. And therein lies your whole problem.

 

You argue that we can measure temperature and that we can also measure time, so time and temperature must have the same reality, and since we don't refer to temperature as a dimension then we can remove time as a dimension. However we also measure distance, so does this eliminate what we call the 3 spatial dimensions as dimension too?

 

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I've already told you spatial dimensions are degrees of freedom. I can move through a spatial dimension. I can't move through the "temperature" dimension, nor can I move through the "time" dimension. And have you forgotten the link I posted that said temperature used to be thought of as a fundamental dimension?

 

But what is C. It is distance (~300,000) divided by Time (1 second). Time is a fundamental property of C. Therefore Time is more fundamental than C. C its self is just a velocity.

 

C is fundamental. It is velocity. Your velocity as a fraction of c determines your time experience.

 

The core of relativity was that time is a dimension. In fact it is so central to relativity, that without it, relativity does not work. The major breakthrough the Einstein had was when he realised that Time was a dimension perpendicular to all the dimensions of space.

 

No. Einstein was pissed off when Minkowski treated time as a fourth dimension.

 

If you are free falling into a black hole, can you freely moving in the vertical spatial dimension? No. Does this mean that that dimension does not exist? Again: No.

Oh yes you can move in a vertical direction. But the vertical direction curves back round to the black hole. All roads point to Rome.

 

Take a photon. It is moving at the speed of light. That means that the spatial dimension in the direction of motion is reduced to 0. Therefore that photon can not move freely in that dimension. Does that mean that there is not 3 dimensions? Yet again: No.

 

A photon is moving in that dimension. It experiences events. But not time.

 

Not being able to freely move in a dimension does not mean that it does not exist. If you are going to prove that Time is not a dimension, then you will need some other reason as that one can not be used to prove that some thing does not exist as a dimension.

 

I'll say it yet again: Time is a dimension but only in the sense that it is a measure. In this respect it is like temperature. It is not a dimension like the dimensions of space that offer degrees of freedom for motion.

 

Velocity is the result of the components of time and space (distance), then the components (time and space) must therefore be more fundamental than the resultant: Velocity. There is no straw man there. You made the claim that time is less fundamental than velocity. And the logic above disproves it. Can you find fault with my logic?

 

Yes, c is fundamental and constant, and is a velocity. It dictates your experience of time. Therefore velocity is more fundamental.

 

Here is another incorrect claim in your initial post (and again it is in line with the other mistakes). A "change of place" is not motion, it is displacement. Motion is displacement that occurs over a period of time. So if you are using a definition of Motion that is different from the accepted definition of motion but is exactly the same as another definition called displacement, then what you are doing is arguing semantics, not science.

 

Here we go again Ed. You're telling me motion demands a period of time therefore I must be wrong. Yet again you use the axiom to "disprove" my essay.

 

Velocity is a vector (but speed is the scalar for velocity). Mass is a scalar. Scalars are not a dimension. Temperature is a scalar. Scalars, when multiplied or divided with a vector only change the magnitude of the vector. If you multiply or divide a distance by Time, you change the vector, not just increase its magnitude...

 

It looks like you're using semantics to dress up the axiom to again "disprove" the essay. And didn't the other definition tell you mass was a dimension? Have you actually understood what I've been telling you about dimensions? Ask somebody else what a dimension is, somebody you trust.

 

You can arrange the formulas to derive a period of time (the displacement in time) from velocity, but this does not mean that velocity is more fundamental than time. You can arrange those same equations to derive space from velocity, but you are not arguing that space is a result of motion (which you would have to do to maintain any consistency in your theory).

 

No Ed. Things move through space. We can move through space. That's what motion is. Something is there. Now its there, now its there, now its there, now its here. It moved. And all the time it was now. It moved through space. I can move through space. It's dead easy. In any direction. But I can't do that with time. Because time just a measure of the motion, and you can't move through the measure of the motion.

 

You can't, with a theory, just arbitrarily limit the mathematical effects of it because it does not sit with your aesthetic expectations. The maths for the calculations of space have been mathematically proven to be the same as time. So if you propose a theory that changes the maths of time, then either you have to show mathematically that the maths that govern Time are different to the Maths that govern Space, or accept that the theory that you propose applies equally well to all result of the effects mathematics (in this case it applies to space as well as time). As we can plainly see that space exist, you must therefore, to avoid this inconsistency in your theory, mathematically prove that time either does not exist, or is not governed by the same mathematics as space. You have made the claim that time does not exist, but have not provided the mathematical proof of this.

 

I didn't say time doesn't exist. As I've said before, it exists, like heat exists, and is similarly derived from motion. But it doesn't have a length, and there is no degree of freedom. We can not "travel" in time, because it is a comparative measure of travel. And I can't prove this with maths because its axiomatic. That's why nobody can "show me the maths" to disprove my argument.

 

I just noticed the big error in this example. In this example the two frames of reference are not equal. In the example, the nail undergoes acceleration where as the cylinder does not. The conclusions, therefore can not be the same for both the cylinder and the nail. The nail, because it has undergone acceleration, experiences the contraction of length in the direction of travel, so not only will the cylinder appear shortened, but so will it. It will collide with both the bottom of the cylinder and the top at the same time (as both it and the can will have undergone the same length contraction). The cylinder on the other hand has not undergone acceleration and so will see a different frame of reference. That is it will have see the "clock" on the nail slowed down, but not length contraction. Therefore it will detect the collision with the point and the head of the nail at the same time. There is no contradiction it is just that the fact that the nail has undergone acceleration and the cylinder hasn't (putting them in different frames of reference) was not taken into account.

 

Ed, this is too much. I'm sorry, but you just don't understand what you're saying. There is symmetry between the cylinder's view of the nail and the nail's view of the cylinder. Find out more about this. Do not feel tempted to argue about it.

 

OK, that's the last "superlong" post of yours that I will respond to at length. You keep repeating the same thing, which is basically "motion is defined by time". Read the essay again. Show it to somebody you trust. Note that "concept" is missing after "current" in the opening paragraph.

 

What I explained is how motion defines time. By all means challenge this, but find something better to challenge it with than "motion is defined by time". You're just going round and round your axiomatic circle. I really do understand Special Relativity. It's because I understand it that I also understand the implications for time.

[Farsight]

wouldn't 't' be required to prove you wrong? as in t=(something) thats a bit like saying prove the existence of water but make sure you don't include water in any of the reactions.

Not really. You prove the existence of water by throwing a bucket of the stuff over somebody's head. And anyhow, you could do a nice reaction using Oxygen and Hydrogen, BOOM!

 

No, the point is that anybody with any expertise in maths knows that t is axiomatic. It's a given, an assumption, and you can't use maths to prove what time really is. That's why serious guys like swansont aren't interested in TIME EXPLAINED. It lies beyond maths, and without maths, in their eyes it's "mere metaphysics".

[Farsight]

You know how I mentioned in the essay that smell was all down to molecular shape? Well maybe I was wrong. Because this guy reckons it's down to molecular vibration:

 

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19225780.123-interview-a-nose-for-controversy.html

 

That's motion again. So that's:

 

Sight detects the vibrational motion of photons

Sound detects the vibrational motion through air molecules

Smell detects the vibrational motion of airborne molecules

Touch detects the vibrational motion of heat plus other motion stuff

Taste detects... aw, four out of five ain't bad.

 

Kinda makes you think huh?

 

OK. Saturday night, gotta go. Ciao for now.

[Edtharan]

And even if I could, I couldn't base it on proven mathematical axioms, becuase axioms aren't proven. They're axioms. And therein lies your whole problem.

in science Axioms aren't proven. In mathematics they can be. That is why science relies on maths. Go talk to a maths lecturer at you local university and ask them if axioms in mathematics can be proven or not. I used to work with the head (retired at the time I knew him) of the physics department from Sydney university. The reason I don't use this fact to add weight to my arguments as it would be the "Argument from Authority" logical fallacy. but while we worked together we did discuss a lot about maths, dimensions, physics, and a lot of other related stuff.

 

Mathematical Axioms can be proven or disproven, Scientific theories can only be disproven.

 

C is fundamental. It is velocity. Your velocity as a fraction of c determines your time experience.

Yes the value for C is a constant, but this in no way proves that velocity is more fundamental than time. Velocity, even the speed of light, is still measured in distance per time (kilometres per second).

 

Actually, it is not just my velocity that determines my time experience. Gravity also determines my time experience. If I am near a large gravitating object, and also in the same frame of reference (ie: not moving), then I will experience slower time than an observer at a distance (and also not moving).

 

Space is also warped by the gravitational mass, and Einstein showed that this spatial warping is matched exactly by the temporal warping. In this there is no velocity, no motion and yet time still gets a look in. Time seems to be unrelated to velocity, but velocity is completely dependant on time.

 

The whole this is very simple:

What is velocity?

Velocity is the measured displacement in space over a period of time. This is the scientific definition of velocity. If you are going to use the term Velocity in a scientific context then you need to use the scientific context.

 

Think about "Set Theory". If there is a Set C and the components of that Set are Set A and Set B, then C can not be a component of Set A or Set B. It is logically impossible (unless you are talking about recursion, and that would produce infinities which do not allow you to use a theory to produce the predictions required for it to be a scientific theory).

 

If Velocity (Set C) has the components Distance (Set A) and Time (Set B) then Time can not have Velocity (Set C) as one of its components.

 

So either redefine "Velocity" in terms where it does not use Time, or accept that Time is more fundamental than Velocity and therefore Velocity does not determine Time.

[Edtharan]

Sight detects the vibrational motion of photons

Sound detects the vibrational motion through air molecules

Smell detects the vibrational motion of airborne molecules

Touch detects the vibrational motion of heat plus other motion stuff

Taste detects... aw, four out of five ain't bad.

I have said it in the past. These analogies do not prove anything.

 

We can trace a direct neural line into the brain that relates these sensations. We have identified the nerve endings that govern our perception of them. We have an adequate (ie not perfect, but a good working model) model of how these effect our brains. We do not have any of these for our perception of Time.

 

How then can you equate our perception of Time to these other perceptions? These other perceptions have a physical and physiological effect that we can measure in the nervous systems. We haven't been able to do that for Time.

 

If you can give us the region of the brain that allows us to sense Time as we do these other sensations, then you would also be able to give us major advances in neurophysiology.