A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: n-stars.
Next: Time sharing space aether geometry
From: Hayek on 18 Jun 2010 11:05 Inertial wrote: > "Peter Riedt" <riedt1(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:0de2b3fb-3aaf-4657-a286-0ac9a3dd7329(a)e34g2000pra.googlegroups.com... >> On Jun 17, 1:30 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >>> PeterRiedtschrieb: >>> >>> >>> >>> > A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME >>> > Time is a human concept; it requires an intelligent memory (such as >>> > the human brain) to have relevance. Time and the notions of past, >>> > present and future were invented by man to order events into a >>> > sequence by identifying them as having occurred before, during or >>> > after other events. Present or current time is a human sensation >>> > caused by observing material objects not affected by change or >>> > perceiving a sequence of macro events through human sensory facilities >>> > as still happening or anticipating them when in fact they are already >>> > physically completed or have not yet started. A unit of time is an >>> > arbitrary time interval established for practical human purposes and >>> > derived from and based on a repeatable cyclical physical process. >>> > Duration is a period of time starting and ending with specific events >>> > identifiable by man and separated by his units of time. All time >>> > concepts are used by man to understand, describe and predict the >>> > causes and effects of natural processes. >>> >>> > While time is essential to man, it does not exist in the universe or >>> > in nature as an absolute or relative entity or anything at all. Nature >>> > is concerned only with the state of the world, as it exists at a given >>> > moment. It does not know of the past or the future. The physical state >>> > of the universe and the extent and direction of the forces in it at >>> > each moment is the cause of its state at the next moment and each past >>> > or future moment is not planned, predicted, measured or remembered by >>> > nature. Time, whichever way defined by man, is not required for nature >>> > to function or progress. >>> >>> Actually I agree for the greater part. >>> But we have clocks and they do something. The question is, what that is, >>> that is behind the behavior of clocks. And we have relativity, that >>> connects time to space, hence makes the term space a human artifact, >>> too. >>> As physics is a natural science, it has to understand nature. To demand >>> predictions of a good theory is like demanding to tell tomorrows news. >>> We can't and physicists can't neither, we only hope, that our models are >>> so sophisticated, that they behave almost like the world itself. >>> But our models are not sophisticated. One reason is, that we have too >>> many of them, but nature works most certainly simple and advances >>> strictly into the future, from every single point. To know the state of >>> every point is certainly impossible. So we can't predict the future. But >>> we could enhance our models. >>> So what do clocks do? Actually they count something, that occurs >>> repeatedly. We only assume, that the rhythm of these events do not >>> change. But relativity says, that tickrates are altered upon >>> acceleration. But not only the clocks change, but space and its content, >>> too. This is kind of hard to swallow and so there are endless >>> discussions about the impossibility of such effects. But science is not >>> about what someone likes or if nature behaves according to believes. >>> Things are as they are and the aim of physics is to understand the >>> mechanisms that make things happen, but not to predict them. This is the >>> job of a fortune teller. >>> >>> TH- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> - Show quoted text - >> >> Thomas, clocks divide a period of 24 hours into 3600 minutes or 86400 >> seconds or >> smaller divisions using a mechanical process such as a pendulum swing >> that is governed >> by the law of inertia. > > Some clocks .. lots of differnent ways to make a clock work > >> They do as you say count something that occurs >> repeatedly but there is >> no timekeeping by nature including forces or laws that vary the rate >> of time. > > How do you know? > >> The progress >> of 'time' is isotropic, > > That makes no sense > >> the speed of light is not. > > But experiment shows that it is. It seems to be isotropic. You have to take into account that these are two-way experiments and that rulers and clocks are not constants. Uwe Hayek. > You're in denial and making grand > assertions with no basis to support your position > > -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: harald on 18 Jun 2010 11:12 On Jun 16, 10:04 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME > Time is a human concept; Ok so far! - http://searcher88.wikispaces.com/Langevin1911 > it requires an intelligent memory (such as > the human brain) to have relevance. Time and the notions of past, > present and future were invented by man to order events into a > sequence by identifying them as having occurred before, during or > after other events. Yes. > Present or current time is a human sensation > caused by observing material objects not affected by change or > perceiving a sequence of macro events through human sensory facilities > as still happening or anticipating them when in fact they are already > physically completed or have not yet started. A unit of time is an > arbitrary time interval established for practical human purposes and > derived from and based on a repeatable cyclical physical process. Not necessarily but usually, indeed (think of water clocks). > Duration is a period of time starting and ending with specific events > identifiable by man and separated by his units of time. All time > concepts are used by man to understand, describe and predict the > causes and effects of natural processes. OK, time is a measure of the progress of natural processes. > While time is essential to man, it does not exist in the universe or > in nature as an absolute or relative entity or anything at all. Nature > is concerned only with the state of the world, as it exists at a given > moment. It does not know of the past or the future. The physical state > of the universe and the extent and direction of the forces in it at > each moment is the cause of its state at the next moment and each past > or future moment is not planned, predicted, measured or remembered by > nature. Time, whichever way defined by man, is not required for nature > to function or progress. > > Peter Riedt A bit like kicking in an open door... was there a hidden message? Harald
From: harald on 18 Jun 2010 11:19 On Jun 18, 4:14 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Jun 17, 1:30 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > [..] > > Thomas, clocks divide a period of 24 hours into 3600 minutes or > 86400 seconds or > smaller divisions using a mechanical process such as a pendulum > swing that is governed > by the law of inertia. They do as you say count something that > occurs repeatedly but there is > no timekeeping by nature including forces or laws that vary the > rate of time. Here you confuse (on purpose?) a human concept ("time") with a physical instrument (a clock). Do you claim that inertia and forces do not affect clock rate? Evidence shows otherwise. > The progress of 'time' is isotropic, Indeed clock rate does not depend on direction if that is what you mean. > the speed of light is not. That depends on your definition; in the usual (operational) definition, it is isotropic. Harald
From: Thomas Heger on 18 Jun 2010 12:13 Peter Riedt schrieb: > On Jun 17, 1:30 pm, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> PeterRiedtschrieb: >> >> >> >>> A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME >>> Time is a human concept; it requires an intelligent memory (such as >>> the human brain) to have relevance. Time and the notions of past, >>> present and future were invented by man to order events into a >>> sequence by identifying them as having occurred before, during or >>> after other events. Present or current time is a human sensation >>> caused by observing material objects not affected by change or >>> perceiving a sequence of macro events through human sensory facilities >>> as still happening or anticipating them when in fact they are already >>> physically completed or have not yet started. A unit of time is an >>> arbitrary time interval established for practical human purposes and >>> derived from and based on a repeatable cyclical physical process. >>> Duration is a period of time starting and ending with specific events >>> identifiable by man and separated by his units of time. All time >>> concepts are used by man to understand, describe and predict the >>> causes and effects of natural processes. >>> While time is essential to man, it does not exist in the universe or >>> in nature as an absolute or relative entity or anything at all. Nature >>> is concerned only with the state of the world, as it exists at a given >>> moment. It does not know of the past or the future. The physical state >>> of the universe and the extent and direction of the forces in it at >>> each moment is the cause of its state at the next moment and each past >>> or future moment is not planned, predicted, measured or remembered by >>> nature. Time, whichever way defined by man, is not required for nature >>> to function or progress. >> Actually I agree for the greater part. >> But we have clocks and they do something. The question is, what that is, >> that is behind the behavior of clocks. And we have relativity, that >> connects time to space, hence makes the term space a human artifact, too. >> As physics is a natural science, it has to understand nature. To demand >> predictions of a good theory is like demanding to tell tomorrows news. >> We can't and physicists can't neither, we only hope, that our models are >> so sophisticated, that they behave almost like the world itself. >> But our models are not sophisticated. One reason is, that we have too >> many of them, but nature works most certainly simple and advances >> strictly into the future, from every single point. To know the state of >> every point is certainly impossible. So we can't predict the future. But >> we could enhance our models. >> So what do clocks do? Actually they count something, that occurs >> repeatedly. We only assume, that the rhythm of these events do not >> change. But relativity says, that tickrates are altered upon >> acceleration. But not only the clocks change, but space and its content, >> too. This is kind of hard to swallow and so there are endless >> discussions about the impossibility of such effects. But science is not >> about what someone likes or if nature behaves according to believes. >> Things are as they are and the aim of physics is to understand the >> mechanisms that make things happen, but not to predict them. This is the >> job of a fortune teller. >> >> TH- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Thomas, clocks divide a period of 24 hours into 3600 minutes or 86400 > seconds or > smaller divisions using a mechanical process such as a pendulum swing > that is governed > by the law of inertia. They do as you say count something that occurs > repeatedly but there is > no timekeeping by nature including forces or laws that vary the rate > of time. The progress > of 'time' is isotropic, the speed of light is not. > You cannot divide time into pieces. The only dividable entity is a duration. We assume that equal parts have equal duration. This is based on the *assumption* of uniform timeflow, its independence of direction and of location. But we have at least two theories, that show, time is not. First is SRT, that states timeflow would be dependent on velocity. The other one is GR, that relates time to acceleration. The experiments at the tower in Harvard (I guess it was there) showed, that clocks run differently at different heights, what could be an influence of the difference in gravity. Our understanding of time is based on our view from the Earth surface, where we have uniform time around the globe. But e.g. the Pioneer anomaly could be explained, if we think about the acceleration by the rocket, the craft was placed on, to bring it into a different 'time domain', where timeflow is pointing in a different direction. Than I had another idea, that is related to GR: imagine the expanding universe would contract again, than this would have an effect on time, because the things we count would be affected, too. Than things would kind of shrink and frequencies tend to spin faster. Than our time measurements wouldn't be constant, if we would count the same type of events. So time is a human artifact, like space, and we had to find some way to determine the 'real' timeflow. TH >
From: Sue... on 18 Jun 2010 15:58
On Jun 16, 4:04 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME > Time is a human concept; it requires an intelligent memory (such as > the human brain) to have relevance. Time and the notions of past, > present and future were invented by man to order events into a > sequence by identifying them as having occurred before, during or > after other events. Present or current time is a human sensation > caused by observing material objects not affected by change or > perceiving a sequence of macro events through human sensory facilities > as still happening or anticipating them when in fact they are already > physically completed or have not yet started. A unit of time is an > arbitrary time interval established for practical human purposes and > derived from and based on a repeatable cyclical physical process. > Duration is a period of time starting and ending with specific events > identifiable by man and separated by his units of time. All time > concepts are used by man to understand, describe and predict the > causes and effects of natural processes. > =================== > While time is essential to man, it does not exist in the universe or > in nature as an absolute or relative entity or anything at all. Nature > is concerned only with the state of the world, as it exists at a given > moment. About 65 million years ago an asteroid entered out atmosphere. Some *TIME* later it impacted on the Yucatan peninsula. Time must be of significance to dinosaurs too because if the rock had taken more *TIME* to cover its final kilometer, the large dinosaurs might still inhabit this planet. << Application of Noether's theorem allows physicists to gain powerful insights into any general theory in physics, by just analyzing the various transformations that would make the form of the laws involved invariant. For example: * the invariance of physical systems with respect to spatial translation (in other words, that the laws of physics do not vary with locations in space) gives the law of conservation of linear momentum; * invariance with respect to rotation gives the law of conservation of angular momentum; * invariance with respect to time translation gives the well-known law of conservation of energy >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications Sue... > It does not know of the past or the future. The physical state > of the universe and the extent and direction of the forces in it at > each moment is the cause of its state at the next moment and each past > or future moment is not planned, predicted, measured or remembered by > nature. Time, whichever way defined by man, is not required for nature > to function or progress. > > Peter Riedt |