Michel's Q.s about time co-ords - Split from "what is time?"

[michel123456]

---------------------------------------

I have come up with a proof to settle this once and for all. You say time flows at a speed of 1 sec per sec. I will now prove that if time moves one sec per sec then space must move 1 mile per mile. The problem is that you are treating time as both a temporal distance and a spatial distance. Speed=d/t you say d\t=t\t this would mean t=t AND t=d if t=d then d=t if d=t then d\t=d\d You say time moves one second per second. I could equivalently say space moves one mile per mile. It does not take one unit of time to go from (0,0,0,0) to (0,0,0,1). The difference between (0,0,0,0) and (0,0,0,1) is one unit of time.

DISPUTE SETTLED.

I don't say that time flows. I don't say that time moves.

i say objects move in time.

[Strange]

I really don't understand what is wrong with that.

 

Um... it's wrong?

 

 

There is of course other kind of information, like dinosaurs bone. But that does not give information about the universe, that gives information about us.

 

There are plenty of material objects that do tell us about the universe. (And arguably, even dinosaur fossils tell us about the universe in the past.)

[michel123456]

 

That's just false. How about sound waves? Humans use those pretty often.

From the Moon? From the Sun? From galaxies?

 

Um... it's wrong?

 

 

There are plenty of material objects that do tell us about the universe. (And arguably, even dinosaur fossils tell us about the universe in the past.)

When you observe the Moon, for example, at what speed do you get information?

[elfmotat]

From the Moon? From the Sun? From galaxies?

 

So, you accept that signals from inside the light-cone can be detected, just not from far-away objects? That's weird. I'm not sure how to argue with such an unusual position. How about massive particles from cosmic rays, neutrinos, etc.?

[pzkpfw]

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_meteorite

 

(A form of communication, very slow (compared to light), telling us about our Moon).

Edited December 9, 2014 by pzkpfw

[Strange]

When you observe the Moon, for example, at what speed do you get information?

 

When we use geological information on the Earth or lunar meteorites, the speed is approximately zero.

 

(Edit: beaten to it!)

Edited December 9, 2014 by Strange

[michel123456]

 

So, you accept that signals from inside the light-cone can be detected, just not from far-away objects? That's weird. I'm not sure how to argue with such an unusual position. How about massive particles from cosmic rays, neutrinos, etc.?

The first signal we can get from inside our light cone is ourself. It shows that we existed in the past. I argue that I am one and only one, I am not something extending from the past and continuing to extend into the future. I am a single "thing" moving into spacetime.

 

Neutrinos also move at near c velocity.

When a particle from cosmic rays is moving at a fraction of c, it gives information of a part of the inside light cone. The surface of the light cone then gets thick.

If a particle travels at 50% of c, it should indeed give us a different aspect of the universe, and if I am correct, should show us a universe made up of different things than that we observe with light, and more and more different as much the signal comes from far away.

 

Another way to give thickness to the surface of the light cone is simply to collect information and wait. For example, our observational light cone is approximatively 500 years thick (if we take beginning of modern observation from Galileo Galilei). At the universe scale, it is very very thin.

Edited December 9, 2014 by michel123456

[Strange]

Another way to give thickness to the surface of the light cone is simply to collect information and wait. For example, our observational light cone is approximatively 500 years thick (if we take beginning of modern observation from Galileo Galilei).

 

It is at least 4 billion years. Possibly far more.

[MigL]

I, on the other hand, would say that a single you extends into the past from the day you were born, through the 'present', and into the future to the day you die. Of course your body and bones and dust will extend even further, but they'll cease moving in the spatial dimensions, such that their space-time graph will be a vertical line.

 

It will still be a single you but at differing time ( and sometimes space, as that is optional ) co-ordinates.

It is not you that is moving in the time dimension, nor is time moving, rather what we consider our local 'present' or 'now' that is continuously translating along the time dimension. The 'present' or 'now', is of course different for everything because of a finite c. Note also that the 'present' or 'now' will proceed at differing rates depending on the space-time curvature of the local frame.

 

It is analogous to being in a train ( since you like that analogy ) and looking out the window. The window is what we can interact with as it represents the local 'present' or 'now', and the changing view out of the window is the time 'landscape'. The landscape or time is immobile; it is the window or 'present' that is moving from the past to the future landscape. The local 'present', in effect, carries us through the time dimension, and it only moves in one direction ( except possibly at really small scales, but that's an argument we'll have another day ).

 

I hope that's a little clearer than mud.

Edited December 9, 2014 by MigL

[michel123456]

I, on the other hand, would say that a single you extends into the past from the day you were born, through the 'present', and into the future to the day you die. Of course your body and bones and dust will extend even further, but they'll cease moving in the spatial dimensions, such that their space-time graph will be a vertical line.

 

It will still be a single you but at differing time ( and sometimes space, as that is optional ) co-ordinates.

It is not you that is moving in the time dimension, nor is time moving, rather what we consider our local 'present' or 'now' that is continuously translating along the time dimension. The 'present' or 'now', is of course different for everything because of a finite c. Note also that the 'present' or 'now' will proceed at differing rates depending on the space-time curvature of the local frame.

 

It is analogous to being in a train ( since you like that analogy ) and looking out the window. The window is what we can interact with as it represents the local 'present' or 'now', and the changing view out of the window is the time 'landscape'. The landscape or time is immobile; it is the window or 'present' that is moving from the past to the future landscape. The local 'present', in effect, carries us through the time dimension, and it only moves in one direction ( except possibly at really small scales, but that's an argument we'll have another day ).

 

I hope that's a little clearer than mud.

The landscape moves with us.

 

The Sun, Moon & galaxies travel in time as well.

 

It is at least 4 billion years. Possibly far more.

I guess you speak about information about the Earth.

We also get occasionaly info from the solar system through comets. Yes.

[MigL]

No it doesn't !

Everything 'sees' its own local landscape ( remember the finite c).

If your 'landscape' includes a black hole for example, you will 'see' it recede into the distant past, as, from your frame, time has stopped at the event horizon.

Edited December 9, 2014 by MigL

[david345]

---------------------------------------

 

I don't say that time flows. I don't say that time moves.

i say objects move in time.

What speed do objects move through time? One second per second? This is not a speed 1 sec\1 sec is equal to the number one. It is equal to pumpkin/pumpkin. I could say it takes one pumpkin to go from 0 pumpkins to 1 pumpkin. Therefore pumpkins move at a speed of one pumpkin per pumpkin. When pumpkin goes from 1 pumpkin to 2 pumpkin then pumpkin 1 must disappear from existence. Otherwise there would be a grotesque superposition of pumpkins. This is why we can't define speed as an object divided by itself. A better way of describing a particle moving through time is this: A particle is moving 100 miles per hour. It moves 100 miles of distance per hour of time. It moves 1 hour in time per 100 miles in distance. I use the word "move" but this is not accurate. It is not moving in space-time. A particle is not moving along its world line at a speed of 1 sec per sec. The accurate way to say it is at t0 the particle is at x0. At t1 the particle is at x1. The speed is ∆x\∆t. For a particle to move along the world line you would need a second time. You could say it moved x units along the world line during a period of x units in second time. This is why speed is d\t. A rate is a ratio between 2 different units. Your problem is you act like t=t and d. According to relativity time may sometimes seem like one or the other. It is not both. Edited December 10, 2014 by david345

[michel123456]

(...) The accurate way to say it is at t0 the particle is at x0. At t1 the particle is at x1. (..)

Agree.

That is exactly what I say.

The particle change coordinates.

[david345]

Agree.

That is exactly what I say.

The particle change coordinates.

Astronaut Sergei Krikalev holds the world record for time travel. He traveled .02 seconds into the future. If you are correct then he doesn't exist in our present and we don't exist in his present. How did he land on earth? Earth and Krikalev exist at many presents.

[MigL]

Michel seems to ignore many things in an effort to lend credibility to his flawed point of view.

Such as the fact that time passes differently in different frames.

[michel123456]

Astronaut Sergei Krikalev holds the world record for time travel. He traveled .02 seconds into the future. If you are correct then he doesn't exist in our present and we don't exist in his present. How did he land on earth? Earth and Krikalev exist at many presents.

This is time dilation, not time travel.

 

from wiki

Time Dilation Record

For a long time, Avdeyev held the record for time dilation experienced by a human being.^[1][2][3] In his 747 days aboard Mir, cumulative across three missions, he went approximately 27,360 km/h and thus aged roughly 0.02 seconds (20 milliseconds) less than an Earthbound person would have,^[4] which is considerably more than any other human being, except Sergei Krikalev.^[5] This is due to the special relativistic effect of time dilation and is not properly thought of as time travelling as described by mainstream culture. A common misconception is that the Apollo astronauts hold the record—they did go faster than Avdeyev, but they were only in space for a few days.

Michel seems to ignore many things in an effort to lend credibility to his flawed point of view.

Such as the fact that time passes differently in different frames.

Let's say I am wrong.

 

Then the particle did not change coordinate.

The particle extend its existence from one coordinate to another. A process that ressemble the making of a spaghetti by extrusion.

Is that it?

[Endy0816]

Then the particle did not change coordinate.

The particle extend its existence from one coordinate to another. A process that ressemble the making of a spaghetti by extrusion.

Is that it?

 

That is it.

[Strange]

Then the particle did not change coordinate.

The particle extend its existence from one coordinate to another. A process that ressemble the making of a spaghetti by extrusion.

Is that it?

 

Exactly. A piece of spaghetti (a spaghetto) is extended in space and time.

[MigL]

Sure, you can call both 'extended', but in a different way.

You can touch your spatial extensions , like your toes.

You CANNOT interact in any way with the you from 10 sec.ago.

 

You've gotta be careful what you say.

If you give Michel123456 any slack, he'll go running off with it again.

[michel123456]

Sure, you can call both 'extended', but in a different way.

You can touch your spatial extensions , like your toes.

You CANNOT interact in any way with the you from 10 sec.ago.

 

You've gotta be careful what you say.

If you give Michel123456 any slack, he'll go running off with it again.

If you cannot interact with the you from 10 sec. ago, how can we make an experiment in order to decide who is wrong and who is right?

 

For example we have the Moon which is constantly about 1 and a half second back in our past.

Can we get some other kind of signal from the Moon where it was lets say 3 sec. ago? And identify this other signal as coming from the same object (the Moon) as the one we are observing at 1,5 sec. with our naked eyes?

[Strange]

If you cannot interact with the you from 10 sec. ago, how can we make an experiment in order to decide who is wrong and who is right?

 

We have models (i.e. theories) which we test. We don't have to observe "time" directly to determine that the model works.

[MigL]

You cannot interact in any way with the moon from one and a half seconds ago as that would imply superluminal transfer of information.

As Strange says, that comes from relativity theory which is well established and provides most of our current ( limited ) understanding of time.

[michel123456]

You cannot interact in any way with the moon from one and a half seconds ago as that would imply superluminal transfer of information.

As Strange says, that comes from relativity theory which is well established and provides most of our current ( limited ) understanding of time.

Subluminal.

the signal would have taken longer to reach us.

If you cannot interact with the you from 10 sec. ago, how can we make an experiment in order to decide who is wrong and who is right?

 

For example we have the Moon which is constantly about 1 and a half second back in our past.

Can we get some other kind of signal from the Moon where it was lets say 3 sec. ago? And identify this other signal as coming from the same object (the Moon) as the one we are observing at 1,5 sec. with our naked eyes?

After a few more thinking, even that wouldn.t convince me.

a signal can be emitted and then the source can go away, or even vanish. receiving the signal does not prove the source is still there.

So I really wonder what kind of experiment should be conducted to know who is right.

Edited December 13, 2014 by michel123456

[Strange]

So I really wonder what kind of experiment should be conducted to know who is right.

 

Easy. All you have to do is show an experiment that contradicts relativity. Until then, we can safely assume you are wrong.

[michel123456]

 

Easy. All you have to do is show an experiment that contradicts relativity. Until then, we can safely assume you are wrong.

What is contradicting Relativity?