is time real

[north]

Urmmm how?

 

Unless I first see (measure) something initially behind something else and then at a later time see (measure) the same object to be infront of it then I've no way of telling whether one object has passed another or not.

 

so you don't trust what you see ?

 

interesting

[Klaynos]

so you don't trust what you see ?

 

interesting

 

Seeing is measuring. That was my point, you need to see it (measure it) twice, else you cannot observe any movement... Even if the two observations are the refresh rate of your brain/eyes it is still two measurements. A single infinitesimally short snapshot which is ALL you would have without time would not allow you to observe any motion.

[swansont]

thanks for your reply swansont.

 

I would also like to ask how time might be affected by the 'end' stages of Universe expansion, at the point where even particles at the sub-atomic level are pulled apart.

 

Would this cause changes in time? since space and time are so mutually dependent?

 

What would be pulling the particles apart? That's not part of any cosmology scenario of which I am aware.

[north]

Originally Posted by north

so you don't trust what you see ?

 

interesting

 

Seeing is measuring. That was my point, you need to see it (measure it) twice, else you cannot observe any movement...

 

really

 

so a Falcon can't overtake a pigeon just by observing the interaction by the two ?

 

obviously the Falcon can overtake the pigeon by observation alone , with NO measurement of either the pigeons speed or the Falcons .

 

and for hundreds of yrs of Falconry it was obvious and is still true

Edited May 3, 2009 by north

[Klaynos]

If you watch a falcon over take a pigeon you are watching it, each frame in your brain is a measurement of position, whether you're consciously aware of it or not your brain is calculating velocities and predicting future positions etc...

 

But even if it wasn't doing anything that complicated if it was just taking two frames 10 seconds apart one with the falcon behind and one with it in front it has made two measurements, they are not accurate measurements but they are still measurements of position relative to each other, and they are temporally separate, and have to be else there could be no position difference.

[north]

If you watch a falcon over take a pigeon you are watching it, each frame in your brain is a measurement of position, whether you're consciously aware of it or not your brain is calculating velocities and predicting future positions etc...

 

your brain is not calculating velocities, who knew velocities at that time period and who cared .

 

it simply was that one bird was faster than another purely by observations

 

But even if it wasn't doing anything that complicated if it was just taking two frames 10 seconds apart one with the falcon behind and one with it in front it has made two measurements, they are not accurate measurements but they are still measurements of position relative to each other, and they are temporally separate, and have to be else there could be no position difference.

 

so time is a consequence of an objects movement , in this case Falcons , as I've been saying

[Klaynos]

your brain is not calculating velocities, who knew velocities at that time period and who cared .

 

it simply was that one bird was faster than another purely by observations

 

 

 

so time is a consequence of an objects movement , in this case Falcons , as I've been saying

 

Actually it is calculating velocities, not in units we use, but it is, that's how we can catch balls and things, it's amazing how our brains do it.

 

By observation, which is measurment.

 

Not a consequence of movement no. Time is part of the universe, it is not a consequence of anything as space is not a consequence, without movement things such as nuclear decay would still happen with a time dependence...

[north]

Originally Posted by north

your brain is not calculating velocities, who knew velocities at that time period and who cared .

 

it simply was that one bird was faster than another purely by observations

 

so time is a consequence of an objects movement , in this case Falcons , as I've been saying

 

 

Actually it is calculating velocities, not in units we use, but it is, that's how we can catch balls and things, it's amazing how our brains do it.

 

By observation, which is measurment.

 

and the observation is based on movement , which gives the ability to measure

 

Not a consequence of movement no.

 

yes time is

 

 

Time is part of the universe, it is not a consequence of anything as space is not a consequence, without movement things such as nuclear decay would still happen with a time dependence...

 

if nuclear decay happens but has still a dependence on time , control the nuclear decay dynamics through time and time alone

 

it won't happen , ever

[Klaynos]

and the observation is based on movement , which gives the ability to measure

 

Which you only have because there is a difference in time. If you consider ONLY t=t_1 then you cannot observe movement.

 

yes time is

 

 

 

 

if nuclear decay happens but has still a dependence on time , control the nuclear decay dynamics through time and time alone

 

it won't happen , ever

 

Actually this can be done. Muon decay is observed to be different in the muon's rest frame compared to a muon moving at a relativistic speed in the measuring rest frame. This has been observed experimentally many times, for lots of different decays.

[north]

Originally Posted by north

and the observation is based on movement , which gives the ability to measure

 

Which you only have because there is a difference in time. If you consider ONLY t=t_1 then you cannot observe movement.

 

while that maybe mathematically true practically it is untrue

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Actually this can be done. Muon decay is observed to be different in the muon's rest frame compared to a muon moving at a relativistic speed in the measuring rest frame. This has been observed experimentally many times, for lots of different decays.

 

so again movement matters

[mooeypoo]

The falcon evolved to do these relative-velocity measurements in his head, that's how he's ABLE to catch the pigeon, north.

 

The Falcon sees the pigeon. His brain measures its relative speed to his own. He calculates which angle to approach the moving pigeon, and acts.

 

I don't see what the problem is, north. Either you're not explaining yourself properly, or you're insisting to just not read or consider what Klaynos and the others are explaining.

 

In short: You're going in circles. Your proposed "problem" was solved, and you insist it wasn't, and then it is solved again, and you insist it isn't, and so on and so on.

 

Read what people answer. Consider it. Then see if you still have a problem with observations vs. measurements.

[Klaynos]

It is not mathematically true and practically untrue, you take a photo with a very very very short shutter time, and it magically becomes practically true.

 

As has already been explained to you by swansont, movement is NOT a requirement of time. It is in fact a problem they try and remove in atomic clocks.

[north]

The falcon evolved to do these relative-velocity measurements in his head, that's how he's ABLE to catch the pigeon, north.

 

yes but the movement came first

 

THAT is my point

 

the movement came from , in this case two objects

 

time is a consequence , not the essence of the movement

[Klaynos]

 

yes but the movement came first

 

THAT is my point

 

the movement came from , in this case two objects

 

time is a consequence , not the essence of the movement

 

As has already been explained to you by swansont, movement is NOT a requirement of time. It is in fact a problem they try and remove in atomic clocks.

 

Swansont has also raised the point that it is impossible to remove time from the universe...

 

Also, are you implying that there is some rest frame of the universe against which everything can be measured as moving or not moving? It seems to be implied by what you require...

[mooeypoo]

 

yes but the movement came first

 

THAT is my point

 

the movement came from , in this case two objects

 

time is a consequence , not the essence of the movement

For the billionth time, north, movement is defined by time.

 

Seeing as this thread has derailed from proper physics into the realm of repetitive philosophical speculations, it is hereby moved to its new (and proper) home, the Pseudoscience and Speculations forum.

 

north, physics uses definitions, please go over them and remain consistent. Otherwise, debates are impossible.

[north]

It is not mathematically true and practically untrue, you take a photo with a very very very short shutter time, and it magically becomes practically true.

 

what does ?

 

As has already been explained to you by swansont, movement is NOT a requirement of time. It is in fact a problem they try and remove in atomic clocks.

 

you can't do it it

 

an atomic clock is based on movement within the atomics of the atoms in the clock , which you base the clock on

 

why would you try to even remove movement from the atomic clock ?

 

it is the movement within say a ciesium clock that gives consistent time , hence why it is used

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

yes but the movement came first

 

THAT is my point

 

the movement came from , in this case two objects

 

time is a consequence , not the essence of the movement

 

 

 

 

For the billionth time' date=' north, [b']movement is defined by time[/b].

 

but I'm not trying to define movement with time

 

all I'm saying is that the fundamental movement by object(s) is independent of time

[Klaynos]

what does ?

 

Originally Posted by north

and the observation is based on movement ' date=' which gives the ability to measure [/quote']

 

Which you only have because there is a difference in time. If you consider ONLY t=t_1 then you cannot observe movement.

 

while that maybe mathematically true practically it is untrue

 

...

 

you can't do it it

 

an atomic clock is based on movement within the atomics of the atoms in the clock , which you base the clock on

 

why would you try to even remove movement from the atomic clock ?

 

it is the movement within say a ciesium clock that gives consistent time , hence why it is used

 

A modern atomic clock (say a fountain clock) is not based on movement, it is based on oscillations between quantum states, there is NO movement involved in the oscillations.

 

You try and remove movement because that induces some noise in the system, some error.

 

Swansont has explained this previously to you. If you do not understand what we mean, please ask and we will happily direct you towards some reading material about it, and answer any questions you have.

[north]

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

A modern atomic clock (say a fountain clock) is not based on movement' date=' it is based on oscillations between quantum states, there is NO movement involved in the oscillations.

 

You try and remove movement because that induces some noise in the system, some error.

 

Swansont has explained this previously to you. If you do not understand what we mean, please ask and we will happily direct you towards some reading material about it, and answer any questions you have.[/quote']

 

first Swansont post #

[Klaynos]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=464000&postcount=23

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=463899&postcount=20

 

You've replied to these posts. So I assume you actually read them?

[north]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=464000&postcount=23

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=463899&postcount=20

 

You've replied to these posts. So I assume you actually read them?

 

had to reread them

 

look my point is and still stands

 

movement of any type is independent of time

 

time is how we define any movement , time is a measurement of how , why and or what is the cause of movement

 

but irregardless of the definition which using time gives us , the movement between objects and their interaction goes on , as well as the atomic inner movement ( oscillations ) goes on regardless of any measurement applied by us

 

the movement within or without is purely because of the Nature of the object(s) themselves , either in their interactions with other objects or within themselves and has nothing to do with time at all

 

 

so in the end time is not real

 

you can't use time and time alone , to influence any physical dynamic behaviour of any object within or any interactions between objects

[mooeypoo]

had to reread them

 

look my point is and still stands

 

movement of any type is independent of time

Okay, look. oobapalloobabamba may be independent of time, if you want it to be, because it is undefined - and therefore can be redefined by you (yay!). Same with googalaratatatala and boobobaablalalabla. Feel free to fill in their definitions and then relate to them as independent of time.

 

Motion, however, is DEFINED already.

It already HAS a definition. It is dependent on time.

 

You can't just claim it's independent and get it done with. It makes no sense. Motion is defined. "The act or process of changing position or place." (source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/motion). This change is dependent on time (otherwise you have no change, you have a static situation == no motion!).

 

time is how we define any movement , time is a measurement of how , why and or what is the cause of movement

 

but irregardless of the definition which using time gives us , the movement between objects and their interaction goes on , as well as the atomic inner movement ( oscillations ) goes on regardless of any measurement applied by us

 

the movement within or without is purely because of the Nature of the object(s) themselves , either in their interactions with other objects or within themselves and has nothing to do with time at all

I don't understand what you wrote here..

 

And what do you mean "the nature of the objects themselves"?? That requires some further explanation.

[north]

Okay, look. oobapalloobabamba may be independent of time, if you want it to be, because it is undefined - and therefore can be redefined by you (yay!). Same with googalaratatatala and boobobaablalalabla. Feel free to fill in their definitions and then relate to them as independent of time.

 

Motion, however, is DEFINED already.

It already HAS a definition. It is dependent on time.

 

You can't just claim it's independent and get it done with. It makes no sense. Motion is defined. "The act or process of changing position or place." (source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/motion). This change is dependent on time (otherwise you have no change, you have a static situation == no motion!).

 

so what do you call motion that is undefined ?

 

surely you can see that if we go back enough in history

 

that people noticed that something round went faster down hill than something flat

[mooeypoo]

 

so what do you call motion that is undefined ?

I don't. You do, that's why no one gets what you mean.

 

surely you can see that if we go back enough in history

 

that people noticed that something round went faster down hill than something flat

... .. I.. what.. okay, how does that have anything to do with ANYTHING!??

 

"Flat items" don't go rolling down the hill because flat items don't roll. What does that have to do with time being real or not??

 

north, seriously, you're mishmashing subjects here just to make a point true? I don't understand how this point have anything to do with your argument about time.

 

~moo

[north]

time is how we define any movement , time is a measurement of how , why and or what is the cause of movement

 

but irregardless of the definition which using time gives us , the movement between objects and their interaction goes on , as well as the atomic inner movement ( oscillations ) goes on regardless of any measurement applied by us

 

the movement within or without is purely because of the Nature of the object(s) themselves , either in their interactions with other objects or within themselves and has nothing to do with time at all

 

 

I don't understand what you wrote here..

 

 

why not it ? it seems plain to me

 

And what do you mean "the nature of the objects themselves"?? That requires some further explanation.

 

the Nature of the object(s) is what it does purely because of what it is given , whether it be chemical , atomic , size and energy and any combination thereof

[mooeypoo]

north, you make no sense.

 

You are using arbitrary meanings to well defined definitions and then expect everyone to agree with your logic.

 

Movement is well defined.

English language is well defined, too.

 

No offense, north, but maybe the problem is with your (nonexistent) sentence structures. I don't understand what you mean, and I don't get your points. You made points based on flawed definitions and now you seem to insist they're still valid.. I don't understand any of your subsequent points. Since you're the one making the claim, it should be your concern to make sure people get what you mean.

 

In other words: You're the one responsible in making yourself clear if you want anyone to accept what you're saying, not the other way around, since you're the one CLAIMING these things.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't even know how to start answering your points, since I don't get what you're trying to say.

 

~moo