There is no time

[mpc755]

Iggy and every one else, i guess i am just not capable of wrapping my mind around the concept that there cannot be a time frame consistent with everyone in the universe, some sort of universal time = T with time as we experience it being a subjective time = t caused by the distortion matter and speed. I understand that gravity and speed slow time down but to me that indicates that such distortion is a local phenomena and that instant communication is just that "Instant" if i called Australia with instant communication i would not expect to see a reply before i sent it, but is that what you are saying or does this only apply to distant objects?

 

Take it to the next step. There is no time.

 

'Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension'

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html

 

There is a similar article which I can not find which states time is similar to money. Money has no intrinsic value. We place value on money so we don't have to barter. Same with time. Time has no intrinsic value. We place value on time so we understand past, present, and future.

 

My analogy is a battery operated clock. You own a battery operated clock. The clock begins to tick slower. Has time changed or do you replace the batteries? You replace the batteries because you understand what occurs physically in nature to cause the battery operated clock to tick slower.

 

Same thing with an atomic clock. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is a physical process, just like the rate at which a battery operated clock ticks is a physical process. If you understand what occurs physically in nature to cause atomic clocks to tick at different rates then you will realize time has not changed.

 

There is a universal time. It is the duration between two events. Take for example, the twin gedanken. The time elapsed for both twins is the same. When the twins separate is the starting event. When the twins get back together is the ending event. 'Time' is the duration between the start and end events. It doesn't matter how many times the atomic clock with the twin on the Earth or the atomic clock in the spaceship with the other twin tick. The same amount of time has passed for both twins.

 

Let's modify the twin gedanken so there is an astronomer in the spaceship with the twin. The spaceship orbits the Earth at a very high rate of speed. Ground controllers radio up to the spaceship to begin the experiment. The astronomer in the spaceship determines the Earth's location with respect to the Sun based on the distant stars. The twin on the spaceship determines the time by looking at an atomic clock. After some period of time, the ground controllers radio up to the spaceship to end the experiment and ask the astronomer and the twin how much time has elapsed. The astronomer determines the Earth is in the same relative position with respect to the Sun based on the distant stars as it was at the beginning of the experiment and determines one year has passed. The twin on the spaceship looks at the atomic clock and determines less than one year has passed.

 

The twin on the Earth, all the people on the Earth, and the astronomer on the spaceship all determine one year has passed. The only person who determined less than one year has passed is the twin on the spaceship.

 

The rate at which an atomic clock ticks has nothing to do with time.

Edited May 18, 2011 by mpc755

[Light Storm]

The rate at which an atomic clock ticks has nothing to do with time.

 

There is also a major serious problem with the way atomic clocks tick that I think is overlooked. They often count passing time by bouncing photons back and forth... I don't know why I'm the only person who sees a problem with this. If you bounce a beam of light between two solid objects, you can determine the speed of light. You start moving those two objects an at any velocity, it will take longer and longer for the light to travel in a strait line from one side to the other effectively slowing the clock, but not the number of heartbeats you will have in that time.

 

Time is an illusion

 

It doesn't exist, their is only constant change, and time is our way of labelling that change.

 

 

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There is also a major serious problem with the way atomic clocks tick that I think is overlooked. They often count passing time by bouncing photons back and forth... I don't know why I'm the only person who sees a problem with this. If you bounce a beam of light between two solid objects, you can determine the speed of light. You start moving those two objects an at any velocity, it will take longer and longer for the light to travel in a strait line from one side to the other effectively slowing the clock, but not the number of heartbeats you will have in that time.

This is not true for three reasons:

 

1. Atomic clocks don't count time by bouncing photons back and forth. They work by exciting atoms which can only be excited at a certain frequency. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST-F1
2. In the clock's own reference frame, light always travels at the exact same speed, and it will always take exactly the same time for it to travel a given distance.
3. One could easily avoid this by bouncing the light back and forth in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel.

[mpc755]

There is also a major serious problem with the way atomic clocks tick that I think is overlooked. They often count passing time by bouncing photons back and forth... I don't know why I'm the only person who sees a problem with this. If you bounce a beam of light between two solid objects, you can determine the speed of light. You start moving those two objects an at any velocity, it will take longer and longer for the light to travel in a strait line from one side to the other effectively slowing the clock, but not the number of heartbeats you will have in that time.

 

Time is an illusion

 

It doesn't exist, their is only constant change, and time is our way of labelling that change.

Exactly.

 

The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of the aether in which it exists. The greater the force of the aether exerted on and throughout an atomic clock the slower it ticks. Time does not change based on the rate at which a physical process occurs. Time does not change based on the rate at which an atomic clock ticks.

 

'NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment'

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/

 

"Our planet spins, and the spin should twist the dimple, slightly, pulling it around into a 4-dimensional swirl. This is what GP-B went to space in 2004 to check."

 

And found.

 

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

 

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

 

The GP-B experiment is evidence the state of the ether is determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the ether in neighboring places.

 

The displacement of the aether by matter is the cause which conditions its state.

 

Regardless if the displaced aether actually spins or what is described as the spin in the GP-B article is the state of displacement of the aether, this is evidence the aether is not the aether of the Michelson Morley experiment. The aether connected to, and neighboring the Earth, is in the same state, or almost the same state, throughout the Earth's rotation about its axis and orbit of the Sun. The near-null result of the Michelson Morley experiment is expected based on the above experiment.

 

'Hafele and Keating Experiment'

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/airtim.html

 

"Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations."

 

Flying with the Earth's rotation, eastward, is flying against the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a greater aether force on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick slower. Flying against the Earth's rotation, westward, is flying with the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a lower aether force on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick faster.

[mooeypoo]

Time is an illusion

 

It doesn't exist, their is only constant change, and time is our way of labelling that change.

 

Isn't that a contradiction? If time is a definition/label, then it exists. As a label.

 

You may want to revise your statement from "time is an illusion" to "we should re-examine the current definition of time", as you seem to not ELIMINATE time but rather suggest an alternative definition for it.

 

 

 

 

 

That said, I am not sure I understand what you mean in "constant change". Change of what?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'

http://www-groups.dc...tein_ether.html

 

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

 

The GP-B experiment is evidence the state of the ether is determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the ether in neighboring places.

 

The displacement of the aether by matter is the cause which conditions its state.

To quote directly from the Einstein page:

 

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

 

Regardless if the displaced aether actually spins or what is described as the spin in the GP-B article is the state of displacement of the aether, this is evidence the aether is not the aether of the Michelson Morley experiment. The aether connected to, and neighboring the Earth, is in the same state, or almost the same state, throughout the Earth's rotation about its axis and orbit of the Sun. The near-null result of the Michelson Morley experiment is expected based on the above experiment.

The GP-B results are explained fully with general relativity, which does not have any "flow" of aether or "aether force." How do the results support aether theory and not general relativity?

[mpc755]

This is not true for three reasons:

 

1. Atomic clocks don't count time by bouncing photons back and forth. They work by exciting atoms which can only be excited at a certain frequency. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST-F1
2. In the clock's own reference frame, light always travels at the exact same speed, and it will always take exactly the same time for it to travel a given distance.
3. One could easily avoid this by bouncing the light back and forth in a direction perpendicular to the direction of travel.

This is incorrect for the following reason:

 

In Einstein's train gedanken, the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment. This means the train is moving with respect to the aether. Three observers get together at M' on the train and synchronize their clocks. As one observer walks towards B' they are walking against the 'flow' of the aether. This causes there to be additional force on the atomic clock being walked to B' and it ticks slower than the clock at M' or the clock being walked to A'. The clock being walked to A' is walking with the 'flow' of the aether and has less force exerted on it and throughout it than the clock at M' or the clock being walked to B' and ticks the fastest. When the clocks are at A', M' and B' they are all under the same amount of aether force and once again tick at the same rate.

 

When the lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B' and arrive at M on the embankment simultaneously the clock at B' has an earlier time on it than the clock at A'. This is why the events are not determined to be simultaneous in the train frame of reference.

 

Everything is with respect to the state of the aether, including the rate at which an atomic clock ticks.

 

You are mistaking "light always travels at the exact same speed" with what actually occurs which is light is always determined to travel at 'c' because everything is with respect to the state of the aether in the frame of reference. Including the rate at which the clocks tick in order to determine the speed at which the light travels.

 

To quote directly from the Einstein page:

 

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

 

Einstein removes from the ether its immobility.

 

"It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility."

 

Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the ether is defined throughout the following article as the ether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time.

 

<begin quotes>

"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

 

"There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time."

 

"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity."

 

"But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

<end quotes>

 

The GP-B results are explained fully with general relativity, which does not have any "flow" of aether or "aether force." How do the results support aether theory and not general relativity?

 

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable" - Albert Einstein

 

Einsteins definition of motion as applied to the ether is different than the definition of mobile. Motion, as defined by Einstein, is individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. The ether of general relativity does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. The ether of general relativity is mobile.

 

If you replace water with ether you will understand Einstein's concept of ether:

 

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the [ether] as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that [ether] consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.

 

Einstein was unable to figure out the cause which conditions the state of the aether.

 

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

 

The cause which conditions the state of the aether is its displacement by matter. This is what the GB-P experiment provides evidence of.

 

The GB-P experiment provides evidence of the ether of general relativity.

Edited May 19, 2011 by mpc755

[lemur]

There is a universal time. It is the duration between two events. Take for example, the twin gedanken. The time elapsed for both twins is the same. When the twins separate is the starting event. When the twins get back together is the ending event. 'Time' is the duration between the start and end events. It doesn't matter how many times the atomic clock with the twin on the Earth or the atomic clock in the spaceship with the other twin tick. The same amount of time has passed for both twins.

But then why don't the twins have a means of measuring the amount of time that has passed for both of them as being the same then?

[mpc755]

But then why don't the twins have a means of measuring the amount of time that has passed for both of them as being the same then?

 

They do if they use the same clock. If both the twin on the spaceship circling the Earth at a very high rate of speed and the twin on the ground both use the location of the Earth with respect to the Sun based upon the distant stars as their clock then they will always have the same time.

[lemur]

They do if they use the same clock. If both the twin on the spaceship circling the Earth at a very high rate of speed and the twin on the ground both use the location of the Earth with respect to the Sun based upon the distant stars as their clock then they will always have the same time.

True, but then what about the fact that different clocks of identical construction run at different speeds when moving at different speeds or in different gravity-levels? Why isn't there a way of constructing identical clocks that measure the same time relative to the planetary motion in each context separately?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This is incorrect for the following reason:

 

In Einstein's train gedanken, the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment. This means the train is moving with respect to the aether. Three observers get together at M' on the train and synchronize their clocks. As one observer walks towards B' they are walking against the 'flow' of the aether. This causes there to be additional force on the atomic clock being walked to B' and it ticks slower than the clock at M' or the clock being walked to A'. The clock being walked to A' is walking with the 'flow' of the aether and has less force exerted on it and throughout it than the clock at M' or the clock being walked to B' and ticks the fastest. When the clocks are at A', M' and B' they are all under the same amount of aether force and once again tick at the same rate.

 

When the lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B' and arrive at M on the embankment simultaneously the clock at B' has an earlier time on it than the clock at A'. This is why the events are not determined to be simultaneous in the train frame of reference.

 

Everything is with respect to the state of the aether, including the rate at which an atomic clock ticks.

 

You are mistaking "light always travels at the exact same speed" with what actually occurs which is light is always determined to travel at 'c' because everything is with respect to the state of the aether in the frame of reference. Including the rate at which the clocks tick in order to determine the speed at which the light travels.

Are you suggesting the aether provides some sort of absolute frame of reference which we may compare against? You say "Everything is with respect to the state of the aether", which seems to imply that.

[mpc755]

True, but then what about the fact that different clocks of identical construction run at different speeds when moving at different speeds or in different gravity-levels? Why isn't there a way of constructing identical clocks that measure the same time relative to the planetary motion in each context separately?

If you build identical clocks which determine the time based on the position of the Earth with respect to the Sun based upon the distant stars then they will tick at the same rate regardless of where they are located or the conditions in which they exist as long as they can determine the position of the Earth with respect to the Sun based upon the distant stars.

 

Are you suggesting the aether provides some sort of absolute frame of reference which we may compare against? You say "Everything is with respect to the state of the aether", which seems to imply that.

Not an absolute frame of reference. That is the immobile aether of Lorentz. Einstein added mobility to the aether and stated the state of the ether is determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places. I figured out this is the state of displacement of the aether. An atomic clock ticks based on the state of the aether in which it exists. This is why identical atomic clocks will tick at different rates when on the Earth and in a GPS.

 

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

 

"In general relativity, an inertial reference frame is only an approximation that applies in a region that is small enough for the curvature of space to be negligible."

 

In aether displacement, an inertial reference frame is only an approximation that applies in a region that is small enough for the displacement of aether to be negligible.

Edited May 19, 2011 by mpc755

[lemur]

If you build identical clocks which determine the time based on the position of the Earth with respect to the Sun based upon the distant stars then they will tick at the same rate regardless of where they are located or the conditions in which they exist as long as they can determine the position of the Earth with respect to the Sun based upon the distant stars.

Yes, I know that as long as two clocks use the same moving system as a basis, they will both see the same repetitions in the system but why, then, can't there be separate clocks in each situation that are in sync with the Earth-sun system without directly using that system as their basis for time-measurement?

 

 

 

[mpc755]

Yes, I know that as long as two clocks use the same moving system as a basis, they will both see the same repetitions in the system but why, then, can't there be separate clocks in each situation that are in sync with the Earth-sun system without directly using that system as their basis for time-measurement?

You can build a clock that watches the tides or the Moon or where Mars is or where Jupiter is or where a comet is or anything else you want that ticks according to something which is external to the physical environment in which the clock exists itself and it will always, as long as it is functioning correctly, tick at the same rate.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If you build identical clocks which determine the time based on the position of the Earth with respect to the Sun based upon the distant stars then they will tick at the same rate regardless of where they are located or the conditions in which they exist as long as they can determine the position of the Earth with respect to the Sun based upon the distant stars.

Not really. If the clock is moving at a relativistic velocity, length contraction will change the apparent distances between the Earth, the Sun, and the stars.

 

Not an absolute frame of reference. That is the immobile aether of Lorentz. Einstein added mobility to the aether and stated the state of the ether is determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places.

Is the aether thus locally stationary -- i.e. stationary regardless of reference frame, within some small vicinity?

 

I figured out this is the state of displacement of the aether. An atomic clock ticks based on the state of the aether in which it exists. This is why identical atomic clocks will tick at different rates when on the Earth and in a GPS.

But this is handled just fine in general relativity. Are you proposing a new interpretation of the same effects, or are you proposing a new theory?

[mooeypoo]

You can build a clock that watches the tides or the Moon or where Mars is or where Jupiter is or where a comet is or anything else you want that ticks according to something which is external to the physical environment in which the clock exists itself and it will always, as long as it is functioning correctly, tick at the same rate.

(emphasis by me)

 

 

 

We do use such devices. Atomic clocks do that, and they consistently show that you're wrong.

[lemur]

Not really. If the clock is moving at a relativistic velocity, length contraction will change the apparent distances between the Earth, the Sun, and the stars.

But it makes sense what he's saying insofar as the proportion of a complete revolution would be the same regardless of the apparent distances, right?

 

What I don't get is that if the periodicity of the Earth-sun revolution is a common event to the two twins, why can't a decaying atom?

 

 

[mpc755]

(emphasis by me)

 

 

 

We do use such devices. Atomic clocks do that, and they consistently show that you're wrong.

Not the atomic clock itself. Atomic clocks have to be adjusted to tick at the same rate when they are in a GPS as when they are on the ground.

[mooeypoo]

Not the atomic clock itself. Atomic clocks have to be adjusted to tick at the same rate when they are in a GPS as when they are on the ground.

 

They're just being synchronized, so they can be external to the physical system, like you want them to be.

[mpc755]

They're just being synchronized, so they can be external to the physical system, like you want them to be.

The atomic clocks have to be adjusted to tick at the same rate. The original question had to do with clocks which will not have to be adjusted in order to tick at the same rate. Atomic clocks tick based on the physical environment in which they exist. Time does not change because an atomic clock ticks at a different rate.

[Light Storm]

Isn't that a contradiction? If time is a definition/label, then it exists. As a label.

 

You may want to revise your statement from "time is an illusion" to "we should re-examine the current definition of time", as you seem to not ELIMINATE time but rather suggest an alternative definition for it.

 

That said, I am not sure I understand what you mean in "constant change". Change of what?

 

 

 

 

My argument for 'Time is an illusion' is usually used in time-travel posts.

Because time does not exist, it's is not something you can ever travel through.

 

In the image you see changing above, you can store a memory of what just happened, and you can predict what is going to happen next. But there is only change, there is no then or when. There is only now and now is always changing. Time is all a matter of persecutive.

 

The average heartbeat for a humming bird is 1,200 beats per minute

The average heartbeat for a human is 72 beats per minute

The average heartbeat for a blue whale is 9 beats per minute

 

To a humming bird, we move in a pretty much slow motion while they appear pretty freaking fast to us

I imagine to a blue whale, we must seem like pretty speedy monkeys, but it's all a matter of perspective.

 

We see the planet taking a year going around the sun, but the sun probably sees it's self as only taking a year to swing around the galaxy

To us, that length of time is about 200 million years.

[mpc755]

Not really. If the clock is moving at a relativistic velocity, length contraction will change the apparent distances between the Earth, the Sun, and the stars.

It won't change where the Earth is located with respect to the Sun based on the distant stars.

 

Is the aether thus locally stationary -- i.e. stationary regardless of reference frame, within some small vicinity?

The state of the aether is its state of displacement. The state of which is determined by its connections with the matter. This means the state of the aether surrounding the Earth is mostly determined by its connections with the Earth. The state of which is also determined by the Moon and the Sun. I would prefer to hold off on discussing the state of the aether as being 'stationary' or not for now.

 

But this is handled just fine in general relativity. Are you proposing a new interpretation of the same effects, or are you proposing a new theory?

I am explaining what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity and what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.

 

When Einstein refers to the state of the ether as being determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places, I understand this to be the state of displacement of the aether.

 

If you look at the evidence of dark matter it is all more correctly understood as aether having mass. There are experiments which have detected ripples created when galaxy clusters collide. The ripples are created because the galaxy clusters are traveling with respect to the state of the aether. The moving galaxy clusters displace the aether. Their collision causes the displaced aether to form a ripple. There are experiments which detect an offset between the gravitational center of the 'dark matter' and the associated galaxy clusters. There is an offset because the galaxy clusters are moving with respect to the state of the aether and displace the aether. The offset is the state of displacement of the aether.

 

The Milky Way's halo is in the shape of a squished beach ball. The halo is the state of displacement of the aether surrounding the Milky Way. The displaced aether exerts force toward the Milky Way and this forces the matter which exists in the plane of the Milky Way toward the center of the Milky Way resulting in the displaced aether being in the form of a squished beach ball.

 

What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. There is no such thing as dark matter traveling with matter. Matter moves with respect to the state of the aether. Aether has mass. Aether is physically displaced by matter. Displaced aether exerts force toward the matter. Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.

 

de Broglie understood wave-particle duality to consist of a physical moving particle having an associated physical wave and stated:

 

"I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, the guidance formula. It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle."

 

I understand the external field acting on the particle is the state of displacement of the aether.

 

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment, the particle travels a single path and enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits both slits. The aether wave creates wave interference upon exiting the slits. As the particle exits a single slit, the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference it encounters. Detecting the particle causes there to be a loss of coherence of the associated aether wave, there is no wave interference, and the direction the particle travels is not altered.

 

Aether displacement explains what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity and what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.

 

Aether displacement explains what occurs physically in nature in general relativity and wave mechanics.

 

Aether displacement is a unified theory.

Edited May 19, 2011 by mpc755

[mooeypoo]

 

 

My argument for 'Time is an illusion' is usually used in time-travel posts.

Because time does not exist, it's is not something you can ever travel through.

 

In the image you see changing above, you can store a memory of what just happened, and you can predict what is going to happen next. But there is only change, there is no then or when. There is only now and now is always changing. Time is all a matter of persecutive.

 

The average heartbeat for a humming bird is 1,200 beats per minute

The average heartbeat for a human is 72 beats per minute

The average heartbeat for a blue whale is 9 beats per minute

 

To a humming bird, we move in a pretty much slow motion while they appear pretty freaking fast to us

I imagine to a blue whale, we must seem like pretty speedy monkeys, but it's all a matter of perspective.

 

We see the planet taking a year going around the sun, but the sun probably sees it's self as only taking a year to swing around the galaxy

To us, that length of time is about 200 million years.

 

And my point was that there's no meaning to movement without time. There's no meaning for "change" without defining a change in WHAT. A movement is a change in placement through time; if I change quickly from one point to another, I move "fast". If I change slowly from one point to the other, I move slow. 30mph.. 40mph... how many miles do I displace in one hour.

 

How do you use movement at all, ever, without the concept of time.

 

All you seem to be saying in your above post is that the perception of time is relative. Great, I might agree with that, but that doesn't mean time is an illusion in general, does it? for it to have a different perception, it must exist. So.. which is it?

[swansont]

The atomic clocks have to be adjusted to tick at the same rate. The original question had to do with clocks which will not have to be adjusted in order to tick at the same rate. Atomic clocks tick based on the physical environment in which they exist. Time does not change because an atomic clock ticks at a different rate.

 

The clocks have to be adjusted because of relativity, not because of the physical environment. Great pains are taken to isolate the clocks from changes in the environment.

 

Time does not change because an atomic clock ticks at a different rate, but nobody is contending that it does. You have the cause and effect backwards. Atomic clocks tick at a different rate because time has changed.

[lemur]

And my point was that there's no meaning to movement without time. There's no meaning for "change" without defining a change in WHAT. A movement is a change in placement through time; if I change quickly from one point to another, I move "fast". If I change slowly from one point to the other, I move slow. 30mph.. 40mph... how many miles do I displace in one hour.

 

How do you use movement at all, ever, without the concept of time.

 

All you seem to be saying in your above post is that the perception of time is relative. Great, I might agree with that, but that doesn't mean time is an illusion in general, does it? for it to have a different perception, it must exist. So.. which is it?

What I get from what he is saying is that from the perspective of the present, the changing numbers in the film-reel are memories and predictions, but that we have to synthesize those cognitively into an image of continuous moments. I don't think he will disagree about the utility of time in measuring defined changes, but from the perspective of any dynamic point in itself, there is only a continuous present. Extrapolating time from movement/change requires the ability to think "outside the present moment." I think this is what he's getting at, anyway, but I will be corrected if I put words in his mouth I'm sure.