Time comparison

[MadScientist]

An observer moving relative to you will not agree that Mars is where you say it is. Things are not in the same state for everyone. Only in your reference frame.

 

Forget about people observing things. Regardless of whether anyone can see an object or not it is still where it is in relation to everything else at any one given moment in time.

 

If there's a tree falling in a forest right now and there's no one there to see or hear it, it's still falling to the floor right now.

 

 

I fully understand that if you were on Venus that Mars will appear to be in a different place to us on Earth but that's only where it appears to be.

 

What if we discovered how to create wormholes??

Say we could direct a wormhole instantaniously to any place on any planet, we wouldn't be interested in where it appears to be now we'd be interested in where it physically is right now when we open the wormhole.

[atinymonkey]

Where, how and why?

 

Make sense, you fool.

[MadScientist]

Make sense, you fool.

 

You just come bursting into a thread and make a one word post containing "What?" with no reference to what you're asking for clarification about so for a laugh I make a reply that makes about as much sense as your post did.. Now you come along and accuse me of being a fool.

I suppose you're right, I suppose I am a fool but you're the guy that I'm talking about above.

 

BTW would you do me a really big favour please, go and find a really big nasty bloke and ask him if he understands all this, when he says no call him a fool so he can kick the shit out of you for me.

[atinymonkey]

Your saying that the bigger you are the less you know about physics? How ironic that you are arguing with MrL.

 

My comment, no matter how oblique it may seem to you, was that you are happily skipping over the logic that has been repeatedly presented to you by rather well qualified physists.

 

It's boring.

 

You bore me.

 

*Yawn*

[MadScientist]

Your saying that the bigger you are the less you know about physics? How ironic that you are arguing with MrL.

 

My comment' date=' no matter how oblique it may seem to you, was that you are happily skipping over the logic that has been repeatedly presented to you by rather well qualified physists.

 

It's boring.

 

You bore me.

 

*Yawn*[/quote']

 

Okay, I give in.

Seeing as the thing I have a problem comprehending hasn't been explained in a way that I can understand I'll leave these forums, perhaps everyone else in the world who doesn't understand something when they first encounter it should stop asking questions about whatever subject it is, yourself included.

[Sayonara]

And once again, False Dilemma solved everyone's problems.

[YT2095]

Fraid not. Time is not absolute.

 

I know what you mean by 'absolute time'; a form of universal clock' date=' where you can say 'This happened THEN!', and then ream off a number of things which happened simultaneously.

 

This is how Newton saw time; it is not how it exists under Einsteinian physics, and, as evidence has shown, the universe.

 

 

There's not absolute motion either. That went out with Newton, and is also precluded by Einstein.

 

If there's an absolute background, special relativity doesn't work, because you lose the equivalence of all the rest frames.

 

And special relativity does work.[/quote']

yeah, that and the way Sayo put it a few posts below this one you wrote is exactly what I meant by Absolute Time. I accept what you`re saying, but I do find it hard to picture without thinking in that way (I`ll get over it).

 

as for Absolute Motion, surely that would just be maintaining a constant and fixed distance from the center of the Big Bang, whilst everything else does its own thing (Expand away from that point I assume)?

[MadScientist]

And once again, False Dilemma solved everyone's problems.

 

I assume I'm the problem and you're referring to the fact that I'm solving everyone's problems by leaving because I sometimes struggle comprehending something, which makes me a fool. Or when I do understand something and try to help someone I'm being smug.

 

What is the point in having public forums if people aren't allowed to be foolish enough to ask questions??

If you want my opinion.. I'd be a bigger fool for not asking in the first place!!

[swansont]

Forget about people observing things. Regardless of whether anyone can see an object or not it is still where it is in relation to everything else at any one given moment in time.

 

If there's a tree falling in a forest right now and there's no one there to see or hear it' date=' it's still falling to the floor right now.

[/quote']

 

No, it's not.

 

The only way you can define what you mean by "now" is to compare it to some other event. A reading on a clock, or another event. e.g. The tree fell at the same time I jumped in the air. The problem is that another observer will not see those events as simultaneous. So how then can you define what "now" means?

[Sayonara]

I assume I'm the problem and you're referring to the fact that I'm solving everyone's problems by leaving because I sometimes struggle comprehending something, which makes me a fool. Or when I do understand something and try to help someone I'm being smug.

Err... not quite what I meant, but never mind.

[YT2095]

MS,

 

I find it ironic that you take such exception to being called a fool, and yet within the same day you posted that someone was being a "Soft Bitch"?

I expect that you`re getting a little of it back!

 

I guess Newton WAS right "For every action...."

[YT2095]

MS,

 

Listen up, there`s No clique, and it WON`T show up because I deleted it, as I have with the above post.

it WAS NOT an excuse to re-post the original garbage!

 

You`re lucky the person in question hasn`t read any of it, because so sure as they`re offended by it, You`re History!

[MadScientist]

MS' date='

 

Listen up, there`s No clique, and it WON`T show up because I deleted it, as I have with the above post.

it WAS NOT an excuse to re-post the original garbage!

 

You`re lucky the person in question hasn`t read any of it, because so sure as they`re offended by it, You`re History![/quote']

 

That's what I meant in the post you just deleted.

I don't mind her taking a dislike to me if there's a chance she can start to enjoy life again.

 

So far today I've been called a fool for not understanding something clearly enough then in another thread, being smug because I tried to put something forwards that might help some people.

 

BTW I took offence to being called a fool.

[YT2095]

it was deleted to protect that person from reading it!

 

as for trying to help them, Think about it, you say you`re no fool, so think HOW that might Offend them!

[JaKiri]

as for Absolute Motion' date=' surely that would just be maintaining a constant and fixed distance from the center of the Big Bang, whilst everything else does its own thing (Expand away from that point I assume)?[/quote']

 

You can only define the center of the universe in relation to other objects, so, depending on your inertial frame when the universe began, you would see it as a different place.

 

You see?

 

(Sorry I haven't done an overall guide to SR, I've been rather busy lately with university things)

[MadScientist]

You can only define the center of the universe in relation to other objects' date=' so, depending on your inertial frame when the universe began, you would see it as a different place.

 

You see?

 

(Sorry I haven't done an overall guide to SR, I've been rather busy lately with university things)[/quote']

 

Yes, I fully understand that concept but..

Well try this.

 

Imagine a snooker table with a large board straight down the middle but a gap underneath for the balls to pass through.

As the player looks along the left side of the table so he can't see the balls on the right but his opponent can he makes his break. The balls now fly off in all directions.

The opponent sees the black ball go down but the player who just broke didn't. The black ball still went down the hole at the same time regardless of which player could see what.

 

So there are two variations of now.

The now when the opponent saw the black ball go down and the now when the other player found out it had gone down.

 

That's all I'm trying to say...

[YT2095]

Jakari,

 

I thought we did know where the center of the Universe was? I may be mistaken or misheard one of these Astronomy Docus though.

 

but assuming it Can or Has been located, surely keeping a fixed and stationaly distance from it`s reference, would be absolute Motion, although I haven`t the foggiest idea how that could be acheived as we`re probaly a kazillion miles or so from it, and rocket technology isn`t quite up to snuff just yet

 

but hypotheticaly, if you could be 1km from the center for instance all around you would seem to moving away from you, and the only thing not moving would be You and the middle bit.

 

like marking where a grenade lands and sticking a solid steel bar in the ground a foot away from it, when it blows all will scatter for 50 off foot in each direction (like out planets and stars) but you (the steel bar) have absolute motion.

 

still probably worded badly, but that`s my idea of it

[Jacques]

In Newton eye space and time are absolute.

In Einstein eye space and time are relative. In our every day experience newtownian physics match observation and relativity with is complexity look like a luxury that we don't need to try to understand. We observe the universe from the external eyes of Science! The equation are simple enougth that with little effort you can understand.

Relativity deal with the extreme . We don't observe these effects in our everyday life and culturally we are not incline to see the world throught these glasses.

A little tought: Does Relative presuppose that there is an Absolute.

Thanks

[Jacques]

No such thing has the center of the universe. To find a center we would need to find some edge.

[JaKiri]

In Newton eye space and time are absolute.

 

Actually, the big difference with Newton was entirely relative space; everything before that had presumed an aether.

 

And of course Relativity doesn't presuppose an absolute; Relativity says an absolute doesn't exist.

 

I thought we did know where the center of the Universe was?

 

Nope, for the reason I explained above. Also others, but they're less relevent. The rest of the post also assumes that the expansion of the universe is uniform, and away from a certain point.

[Jacques]

away from a certain point

 

I see more the expansion of the universe away from every point. Go to any point in the universe and you will see the expansion happening te same way.

Just a thought

[JaKiri]

I see more the expansion of the universe away from every[/u'] point. Go to any point in the universe and you will see the expansion happening te same way.

 

This doesn't disagree with my post, you know.

[Jacques]

away from a certain point sugest to me that there is a center for the expansion

[JaKiri]

away from a certain point sugest to me that there is a center for the expansion

 

Yes, it does.

[Severian]

I suspect JaKiri isnow being deliberately misleading....

 

Jaques statement that the universe is expanding away from every point is correct, and since a 'certain point' is a subset of 'every point' then it must be expanding away from a certain point too. But I don't think Jacques is talking about a 'certain point' in this sense. What (I think) he was complaining about is that there should be no special reference frame, and this is correct.