A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: n-stars.
Next: Time sharing space aether geometry
From: Vern on 24 Jun 2010 12:18 On Jun 24, 2:36 am, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Jun 23, 9:23 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:> >> On <snip> > > Explain how you can have time without change, or change without time? > > We cannot but time is irrelevant for nature. It seems to me that time, or at least the evidence of it, is a consequence of having two or more dimensions of space. Time could also be present in one-dimensional space, but there would be no evidence of it. In two or three dimensional space, movement is possible, and if movement is possible, then time having elasped is also possible. There's nothing wrong with the Newtonian concept of time, to the extent that it's not modified by the relativistic concept of time. Vern
From: BURT on 24 Jun 2010 14:29 On Jun 20, 2:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 20, 5:08 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Science talks in concepts but in the end it knows they are simply > > reality. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Time is a concept. > > The rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with time. > > A brother is on a space ship which orbits the Earth. The other brother > is on the Earth. Both brothers measure time by the location of the > Earth with respect to the Sun based upon the distant stars. > > Both brothers conclude one year has passed at the same instant > regardless of how many times their atomic clocks have 'ticked'. If > one, or both, of the clocks do not say one year has passed then the > clock did not 'tick' at the appropriate rate. > > 'On Einsteins resolution of the twin clock paradox'http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf > > "Concluding note > Einsteins paper in 1918 was apparently written on advise from friends > to respond to the critics of special relativity, in manner that was > appropriate for a scientist defending his theory. The very fact that > Einstein used the gravitational time dilation predicted by the theory > of general relativity, invented ten years after the formulation of > special relativity, to justify the asymmetrical time dilation of > transported clocks provides some support to the genuineness of the > alleged reality of the paradox within special relativity." > > The rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' is based upon the aether > pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS > satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether > and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS > satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest > with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to > "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated > with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS > satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth" causing the GPS > clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". The aether pressure > associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with > respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the > aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites > [to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground." > (quoted text fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS). > > There is a different amount of aether pressure on the brother in the > space ship circling the Earth than there is on the brother on the > Earth and this aether pressure is affecting the molecules and atoms > which each brother consists of. There are so many other factors which > play a much greater part in the aging of the brothers. Radiation, lack > of gravity, how the food they eat is digested, and other factors > contribute to the aging of the brothers much more than the rate at > which their associated atomic clocks tick. What those who do not > understand time is a concept then suggest is to make everything > completely equal between the two brothers. If everything is made > completely equal then the associated atomic clocks tick at the same > rate. > > If the brothers are in a state where their associated atomic clocks > 'tick' at different rates then there is much more going on in their > respective environments which are affecting the rate at which they age > then the rate at which their associated clocks 'tick'. > > To suggest the brothers age at the rate at which their associated > atomic clock 'tick' is silly. Aether is with the moving parts of a clock. Mitch Raemsch
From: Peter Riedt on 25 Jun 2010 20:40 On Jun 23, 9:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 7:40 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > Harald, I am trying to be precise. Nature does not know or use time; > > only humans do. Instead, nature uses change in a timeless way without > > remembering the status before the change or planning the status after > > the change. As time does not exist, it cannot slow down or speed up. > > However, the rate of change can vary. > > Here is where you are making a philosophical statement. > You are saying that time cannot change, but the laws of physics can, > from instance to instance. > I'm curious why you think the laws of physics would change. > PD, the laws of physics cannot change. Change in nature is the result of the laws of physics. It occurs at the nano level or below. It is very difficult for us to observe these changes at that level without advanced devices. At our level we can see a seed grow to a full sized tree over many years. It involves a myriad of microscopic changes. The important thing is that nature does not use our concepts of time to achieve creation. We however use artifices like seconds, meters and kilograms to explain to ourselves the laws of physics. Peter Riedt
From: PD on 26 Jun 2010 10:23 On Jun 25, 7:40 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Jun 23, 9:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Jun 22, 7:40 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > Harald, I am trying to be precise. Nature does not know or use time; > > > only humans do. Instead, nature uses change in a timeless way without > > > remembering the status before the change or planning the status after > > > the change. As time does not exist, it cannot slow down or speed up. > > > However, the rate of change can vary. > > > Here is where you are making a philosophical statement. > > You are saying that time cannot change, but the laws of physics can, > > from instance to instance. > > I'm curious why you think the laws of physics would change. > > PD, the laws of physics cannot change. Change in nature is the result > of the laws of physics. It occurs at the nano level or below. It is > very difficult for us to observe these changes at that level without > advanced devices. At our level we can see a seed grow to a full sized > tree over many years. It involves a myriad of microscopic changes. The > important thing is that nature does not use our concepts of time to > achieve creation. We however use artifices like seconds, meters and > kilograms to explain to ourselves the laws of physics. > > Peter Riedt Peter, all you've done is to say, "Things behave the way I say they behave, not the way you think they behave. But to account for why they behave the way I say they do, there must be things unknown that are driving them." All you are doing is saying, "I reject your explanations. I'd rather have unknowns driving an alternate explanation than to try to understand your explanation." It's better to insist that NO ONE understands anything than it is to say that you don't understand something as well as somebody else, right? PD
From: Peter Riedt on 27 Jun 2010 00:17
On Jun 26, 10:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 7:40 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 9:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Jun 22, 7:40 pm, Peter Riedt <rie...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Harald, I am trying to be precise. Nature does not know or use time; > > > > only humans do. Instead, nature uses change in a timeless way without > > > > remembering the status before the change or planning the status after > > > > the change. As time does not exist, it cannot slow down or speed up.. > > > > However, the rate of change can vary. > > > > Here is where you are making a philosophical statement. > > > You are saying that time cannot change, but the laws of physics can, > > > from instance to instance. > > > I'm curious why you think the laws of physics would change. > > > PD, the laws of physics cannot change. Change in nature is the result > > of the laws of physics. It occurs at the nano level or below. It is > > very difficult for us to observe these changes at that level without > > advanced devices. At our level we can see a seed grow to a full sized > > tree over many years. It involves a myriad of microscopic changes. The > > important thing is that nature does not use our concepts of time to > > achieve creation. We however use artifices like seconds, meters and > > kilograms to explain to ourselves the laws of physics. > > > Peter Riedt > > Peter, all you've done is to say, "Things behave the way I say they > behave, not the way you think they behave. But to account for why they > behave the way I say they do, there must be things unknown that are > driving them." > > All you are doing is saying, "I reject your explanations. I'd rather > have unknowns driving an alternate explanation than to try to > understand your explanation." > > It's better to insist that NO ONE understands anything than it is to > say that you don't understand something as well as somebody else, > right? > PD, wrong. It is better to accept that many people understand many things very well. Peter Riedt |