Myuncle Posted February 1, 2015 Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) And distance between stuff changing is a consequence of time - for without time there is no concept of distance between stuff changing. And how can you prove that distance between stuff changing is a consequence of time? You can't prove that. In fact we are moving, running everyday, and the distances are changing without any need of time. Robin, I said that change and time are different and that you can have one without the other (both ways). Time and change/motion are the same thing. The only difference is that when we use the word "change/motion" we refer to the change/motion of a single thing, and when we use the word "time", we refer to the change/motion of everything in the universe. You CAN have one without the other? Well, you CAN have Santa Claus as well, the problem is to prove it. Edited February 1, 2015 by Myuncle
Commander Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I believe in Absolute Time wherher it is possible to measure it or not !
Strange Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I believe in Absolute Time wherher it is possible to measure it or not ! I believe in Santa Clause whether it is possible to see him or not!
swansont Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I believe in Absolute Time wherher it is possible to measure it or not ! This is the science section. You want religion, which is elsewhere.
Commander Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 This is the science section. You want religion, which is elsewhere. swansont : What do you mean ?
swansont Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 swansont : What do you mean ? Belief regardless of evidence is not science, it is religion.
Commander Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Belief regardless of evidence is not science, it is religion. You misunderstood. I said TIME is absolute whether you like it or not That believe word is figurative - don't get confused This is right and soundly part of Science and not Religion
Strange Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 You misunderstood. I said TIME is absolute whether you like it or not That believe word is figurative - don't get confused This is right and soundly part of Science and not Religion Unless you have some evidence that time is absolute (and you don't) then it is a religious belief, not science.
StringJunky Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 You misunderstood. I said TIME is absolute whether you like it or not That believe word is figurative - don't get confused This is right and soundly part of Science and not Religion http://physicsforidiots.com/physics/relativity/
swansont Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 You misunderstood. I said TIME is absolute whether you like it or not That believe word is figurative - don't get confused This is right and soundly part of Science and not Religion I think I understood quite well. We have strong evidence that it's not, and you believe it anyway. That's religion.
andrewcellini Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Time and change/motion are the same thing. motion and time are not the same. you need time to describe motion, for example the speed of an object is given in distance/time. time =/= distance/time the rest of your post uses words in an unconventional sense. i don't know what you mean when you say time describes universal motion. Edited February 3, 2015 by andrewcellini
Strange Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Oh no, not the "time is motion/change" argument again. I can't stand it! Can't someone start a special forum for peoiple who don't believe in time ... 1
Commander Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 There are two meanings for TIME ! One is something like AGE etc which is absolute about any Body of matter if we can calculate that AGE with respect to the Absolute Time. The other one is Time being used as a parameter in Space-Time or Movement of Bodies through Space, particles, Planets etc and how that parameter behaves in that calculation - whether Linear, Curving , Vectorially Varying etc needing higher maths to depict its value though every one of those values can be mapped into the absolute scale if we know our moorings in Space !! 1
Strange Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 One is something like AGE etc which is absolute about any Body of matter if we can calculate that AGE with respect to the Absolute Time. You obviously aren't aware of the Twin Paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox though every one of those values can be mapped into the absolute scale if we know our moorings in Space Nope.
Myuncle Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 motion and time are not the same. you need time to describe motion, for example the speed of an object is given in distance/time. time =/= distance/time the rest of your post uses words in an unconventional sense. i don't know what you mean when you say time describes universal motion. Yes, we need time as a sequence to describe motion, but not as a dimension. The sequence of all the motions in the universe is what we call time, and we measure it with some constant motion (like our clocks). I think it's important to use the right word. If we replace the word dimension with the word sequence, we resolve every debate regarding time. Can we reverse all these motions? No, if we could rewind or forward every single motion in the universe, we could time travel. Again, just to to clarify: does time exist? Of course yes, but as a sequence of all motions, not as a dimension. -1
Strange Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Yes, we need time as a sequence to describe motion, but not as a dimension. Then perhaps you could explain how our most successful theories, which treat time as a dimension not as a "sequence", are able to work.
andrewcellini Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) Yes, we need time as a sequence to describe motion, but not as a dimension. The sequence of all the motions in the universe is what we call time i'm not sure who "we" is in this situation as you are the one proposing this new definition of time. sequence would not be the "right word" given its usage in the mathematics. i guess you could call it a parameter if you're so opposed to dimension, but that word would probably not be appropriate given its usage in Special and General Relativity. i'm not sure how to respond to the rest of your post. you don't provide any reasons why swapping words would resolve any problems, or any clear examples of real problems that terminology seems to be causing. Edited February 4, 2015 by andrewcellini
Commander Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 You obviously aren't aware of the Twin Paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox Nope. Yes, I read it. I have heard of this earlier too. Can you tell me what does this mean and what are the Conclusions. There is no paradox.
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 ! Moderator Note Speculations stay in the Speculations forum, please. Valkaes, I have hidden your recent post in accordance with this.
Strange Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Yes, I read it. I have heard of this earlier too. Can you tell me what does this mean and what are the Conclusions. It means that the rate at which someone ages depends on movement and gravity. It is not absolute. There is no paradox. Indeed. Every single example of a "paradox" in science is simply a label used to describe something which has surprising results.
Myuncle Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Then perhaps you could explain how our most successful theories, which treat time as a dimension not as a "sequence", are able to work. The theories work even if you use the word dimension, but don't you think it's a misleading word? A sequence is just a sequence, love is just a sentiment, but you would never associate the word love with dimension, unless you use it in poetry and say "love is our most important dimension".
Strange Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 The theories work even if you use the word dimension, but don't you think it's a misleading word? No. That is how it is used, mathematically, in modern science: as a dimension. You might not like that but ...
Commander Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) It means that the rate at which someone ages depends on movement and gravity. It is not absolute. Indeed. Every single example of a "paradox" in science is simply a label used to describe something which has surprising results. I don't agree with : someone ages depends on movement and gravity I mean I don't agree with that kind of false calculations. AGE is what AGE is : Everyone knows that, except some confused souls ! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are all moving at a terrific Velocity [because of the same Gravity] What about that ? Edited February 4, 2015 by Commander
Strange Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 I don't agree with : someone ages depends on movement and gravity I mean I don't agree with that kind of false calculations. Then you need to show why general relativity is wrong (despite making accurate predictions and being used in all sorts of technology - e.g. the Internet). Because the evidence disagrees with you. And if it is a choice between evidence/reality and some unknown guy on the Internet, I am going to stick with reality. Sorry.
Commander Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Then you need to show why general relativity is wrong (despite making accurate predictions and being used in all sorts of technology - e.g. the Internet). Because the evidence disagrees with you. And if it is a choice between evidence/reality and some unknown guy on the Internet, I am going to stick with reality. Sorry. But why are you not telling me the effect of the Gravitational Velocity on all of us and our age ? You know at what speed we are hurtling through Space ? Just take your Mass and multiply it with the Mass of the Universe and apply Newton's Gravitational Law with inverse Square of the Distance to the Center of Gravity of the Universe and that will be the Gravitational Force applying on you [and me as we are all in it with every Particles around us - add Bosons, X-Bosons and Everything - including the Cern Lab which tracks all particles] Now tell me WHAT IS MASS ? That is something NO ONE KNOWS !
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now