Absolute Zero and No Motion

[Strange]

thing have cause

 

Citation needed.

[hoola]

I live and breathe? Do I need to find a citation for that too? haha

I have a citation, therefore I am...

[Strange]

I live and breathe? Do I need to find a citation for that too? haha

 

No. But your arguments just consist of a series of unsupported assertions and personal beliefs. Not a good way to do science.

[Maxila]

 

...there are two issues: time and the measurement of time. Focusing on the latter does not necessarily tell you about the former. We can't remove motion from the measurement but one can't validly conclude from that that motion is necessary for time.

 

The issue I have with this reasoning is that empirically time is observed as a measurement of physical things (the change of position of energy in some form), the same way mass is the measurement of a quantity of energy. I don’t think you’d use that reasoning for mass by saying “we can’t remove energy from a measurement of mass doesn’t mean energy is necessary for a mass to exist.”

 

I believe we should objectively follow where the empirical evidence takes us and not so readily dimes is because of our preconceived notions.

 

Further, we have the empirical knowledge that time slows down as motion increases and speeds up as motion decreases. There's not even an extrapolation here that could be bastardized to support the idea.

 

 

I have explored how the empirical nature of time might explains SR dynamics more completely, simply, and is compatible with their maths. That same interpretation doesn't appear compatible with the curvature of space in GR, but interestingly implies gravitational lensing effect with that curvature. Such a discussion is not appropriate for this forum but I wanted let you know a possible explanation does exist. Sorry for not saying more but again I don't think it is an appropriate discussion for this venue.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Maxila

[hoola]

actually logic figures in there somewhere.....to maxila...time may be observed slowing down but that doesn't mean it ever stops completely...from all reference frames

isn't absolute zero unattainable anyway?,,,the topic premise is illogical to start with...

I suppose if we could freeze the quantum foam, or remove it in some grand casimir experiment, we actually could reach absolute zero...

then, I admit some logic would infer a complete stoppage of time, within the region of the experiment, and with it cessation of all movement informationally or physically

this would constitute the creation of a "pure" void, instead of the cluttered mess we have, which seems a dangerous thing to do. If our universe came from such a state of purity, could another one have the proper conditions to appear again it the lab?

Edited August 15, 2014 by hoola

[swansont]

The issue I have with this reasoning is that empirically time is observed as a measurement of physical things (the change of position of energy in some form), the same way mass is the measurement of a quantity of energy. I don’t think you’d use that reasoning for mass by saying “we can’t remove energy from a measurement of mass doesn’t mean energy is necessary for a mass to exist.”

You're right, I wouldn't use that reasoning, because it's invalid. We have a well-establiched theory (i.e. complete with lots of evidence) that says that mass is a form of energy. If we change the amount of energy is a system, the mass changes. When we change the amount of motion in a system, the time change goes the wrong way for motion to be a requirement for time.

 

 

I believe we should objectively follow where the empirical evidence takes us and not so readily dimes is because of our preconceived notions.

 

What empirical evidence? Since you can't remove motion from the measurement, how can such empirical evidence exist that this correlation is actually causation?

 

 

I have explored how the empirical nature of time might explains SR dynamics more completely, simply, and is compatible with their maths. That same interpretation doesn't appear compatible with the curvature of space in GR, but interestingly implies gravitational lensing effect with that curvature. Such a discussion is not appropriate for this forum but I wanted let you know a possible explanation does exist. Sorry for not saying more but again I don't think it is an appropriate discussion for this venue.

 

We have a speculations section.

[xyzt]

 

 

 

I have explored how the empirical nature of time might explains SR dynamics more completely, simply, and is compatible with their maths. That same interpretation doesn't appear compatible with the curvature of space in GR, but interestingly implies gravitational lensing effect with that curvature. Such a discussion is not appropriate for this forum but I wanted let you know a possible explanation does exist. Sorry for not saying more but again I don't think it is an appropriate discussion for this venue.

The above sounds like a classical word salad. Can you post the math that goes with it or is it just that, a word salad?

[Maxila]

If we change the amount of energy is a system, the mass changes. When we change the amount of motion in a system, the time change goes the wrong way for motion to be a requirement for time.

 

 

Can you explain this in more detail, I'm not sure what you are referring too.

 

What empirical evidence? Since you can't remove motion from the measurement, how can such empirical evidence exist that this correlation is actually causation?

 

 

The physical observation of time and motion shows them to be coincident and reciprocal (i.e. where t is time, x is a distance, and s is speed, it is equally valid to say t=x/s or s=x/t). They represent an inseparable realtionship to a change in distance (space). We cannot give preference too, or isolate one from the other (t or s), yet the physical observation only consist of distance and some form of energy changing position within that distance, making that time or speed a description, or measurement of that phenomenon; analogous to mass being the description or measurement of an energy quantity. That empirical observation makes it clear such a measurement (time or speed) cannot be made unless there is a change of position of energy by which to make it, and it is likely not an entity in its own right. The evidence and, the cause and effect are very clear in that context

The above sounds like a classical word salad. Can you post the math that goes with it or is it just that, a word salad?

 

You really need to make an effort to understand what you've read before posting and you might see how irrelevant that comment was to the content of the post it referenced.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Maxila

[xyzt]

 

Can you explain this in more detail, I'm not sure what you are referring too.

 

 

The physical observation of time and motion shows them to be coincident and reciprocal (i.e. where t is time, x is a distance, and s is speed, it is equally valid to say t=x/s or s=x/t).

 

 

The above is valid only for uniform motion (constant velocity). It is not valid for general cases.

I asked for math to see your level of knowledge. Thank you for obliging.

[studiot]

 

The physical observation of time and motion shows them to be coincident and reciprocal (i.e. where t is time, x is a distance, and s is speed, it is equally valid to say t=x/s or s=x/t).

 

 

What rubbish.

 

Please calculate t for s = 0 in your equation.

 

Not all functions have reciprocals at all points, some even have no reciprocals at all.

Edited August 15, 2014 by studiot

[xyzt]

 

 

What rubbish.

 

Please calculate t for s = 0 in your equation.

 

Not all functions have reciprocals at all points, some even have no reciprocals at all.

The level of math knowledge is a very good indicator of physics knowledge. This is why I always ask for a mathematical formulations of the individual's prose claims.

[Strange]

actually logic figures in there somewhere....

 

You seem to use the word "logic" to mean "it makes sense to me". This sort of "common sense" approach is the antithesis of science.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

You really need to make an effort to understand what you've read before posting and you might see how irrelevant that comment was to the content of the post it referenced.

No.

It is your responsibility to make sense, not ours to try to interpret it.

In particular, for example, when you say

"I have explored how the empirical nature of time might explains SR dynamics more completely, simply, and is compatible with their maths."

you have failed to construct a sentence which can be reliably parsed in English.

 

It's your job to make the effort.

Try again.

[swansont]

 

Can you explain this in more detail, I'm not sure what you are referring too.

 

 

The physical observation of time and motion shows them to be coincident and reciprocal (i.e. where t is time, x is a distance, and s is speed, it is equally valid to say t=x/s or s=x/t). They represent an inseparable realtionship to a change in distance (space). We cannot give preference too, or isolate one from the other (t or s), yet the physical observation only consist of distance and some form of energy changing position within that distance, making that time or speed a description, or measurement of that phenomenon; analogous to mass being the description or measurement of an energy quantity. That empirical observation makes it clear such a measurement (time or speed) cannot be made unless there is a change of position of energy by which to make it, and it is likely not an entity in its own right. The evidence and, the cause and effect are very clear in that context

 

I mentioned in my previous post: time dilation goes to zero at v=0, and increases with speed. Time speeds up as you slow down.

[Maxila]

 

I mentioned in my previous post: time dilation goes to zero at v=0, and increases with speed. Time speeds up as you slow down.

 

It was the "wrong way" part that I didn't understand, but that made it clear the "wrong way" was time dilation. You've been professional and civil; however for many the comments are deteriorating to mere innuendo and insult, the probability to discuss and debate with even a smidgen of scientific reasoning is so low, this post is a good time for me to make an exit from this thread.

 

I'll just point to the clue that addresses the original statement "When we change the amount of motion in a system, the time change goes the wrong way for motion to be a requirement for time" ,and leave out my reasoning because that will be interpreted to what most reader's wants to see rather than for what is said.

 

When there is relative velocity of frame A to B of course they are both at rest in regards to time in their local frame, the relative velocity is added energy from one frame in respect to the other, the same way there is added energy to a mass in a gravitational field and that mass is time dilated to a frame outside that field. The escape velocity of a particular field, when that is a relative velocity to another frame, has the same relative time dilation as the gravitational field (the relative velocity absent a gravitational field).

Edited August 16, 2014 by Maxila

[xyzt]

 

 

When there is relative velocity of frame A to B of course they are both at rest in regards to time in their local frame, the relative velocity is added energy from one frame in respect to the other, the same way there is added energy to a mass in a gravitational field and that mass is time dilated to a frame outside that field. The escape velocity of a particular field, when that is a relative velocity to another frame, has the same relative time dilation as the gravitational field (the relative velocity absent a gravitational field).

This makes absolutely no sense.

[swansont]

 

When there is relative velocity of frame A to B of course they are both at rest in regards to time in their local frame, the relative velocity is added energy from one frame in respect to the other, the same way there is added energy to a mass in a gravitational field and that mass is time dilated to a frame outside that field. The escape velocity of a particular field, when that is a relative velocity to another frame, has the same relative time dilation as the gravitational field (the relative velocity absent a gravitational field).

 

The energy of a particle in a gravitational potential is lower than one far away. The energy you say is added is actually subtracted.