Arrow of Time
in [Relativity]
|
From: Yousuf Khan on 3 Jul 2010 01:26 On 7/3/2010 3:47 AM, BURT wrote: > On Jul 2, 1:51 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: >> Time does affect causality. At relativistic speeds, time slows down, and >> therefore causality slows down too. Chemical reactions slow down, >> biological processes slow down, therefore a person traveling at >> relativistic speeds will age slower than somebody standing still (i.e. >> the Einstein twin paradox). > > You're clock is running slow but it is always going forward! > > Mitch Raemsch But at the quantum level, you can't tell if time is going forward or backward, they all look the same. It's only at the macro level where entropy comes into play that you can distinguish somewhat between forward and backward. In another universe, if the time arrow were reversed from our own, then we would be calling that time direction the forward direction. Yousuf Khan
From: Yousuf Khan on 3 Jul 2010 01:30 On 7/3/2010 9:11 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: > On Jul 2, 4:51 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> That's of course not true. There's plenty of things in the universe that >> are reversible. Earth's orbit around the Sun, for example, is so >> reversible that you can roll it back in time billions of years, and >> still be able to tell where it was. You could also roll it forward >> billions of years, and tell where it will be. > -------------------------------------------------- > > My dear benighted fellow! Have you never heard of Henri Poincare and > his work on the stability of the Solar System, and the discovery of > deterministic chaos/nonlinear dynamical systems? Do you read current > scientific papers? > > You are talking pre-Poincare 19th century fantasy physics which was > wrong even back then. > > To espouse such nonsense today is pathetic! Any competent physicist > will inform you that your statement is completely ridiculous and > false, to boot. > > At least try to come up to speed with the 20th century, if you are not > ready to go forth boldly into the 21st century. > > KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW, > > AND KNOW WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW. > > Both are important, Pilgrim. My dear Pilgrim, you have just now discovered why nobody takes you seriously. Instead of engaging in discussion, you just put up your defenses, spewed irrelevant gobbledygook and began name-calling. You'll have to wait another several months for somebody listen to you again. Yousuf Khan
From: hanson on 3 Jul 2010 06:03 "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:sNudneDXHbJbz7PRnZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > On 7/3/2010 1:08 AM, JT wrote: >> Well the spatial dimensions in special relativity is all fucked up. >> Since events are not local they may not behave the way we are >> accustomed to but they will abey the logic of causality in some form. >> So we have a timeline that is a rubberband but the reality outside the >> bubble of universe is still stringent in fact it will be stringent in >> every point of universe that studies our universe it will follow the >> line of causality but with both spatial and timelike distorsion, none >> of those is however proved. >> >> But even if we suppose there is local timelines, the causality will >> measure and describe events in a logical consise and coherent way. And >> that is from any point that studies the event....s , in special >> relativity that is not the case however it is a faulthy theory, that >> can not give a coherent description of events separated by time and >> spatial. > "Yousuf Khan" wrote: > Well, if you think about it, in special relativity, all they are really > saying is that causality is slowed down at relativistic speeds. Chemical > reactions, biological processes, kinetic processes, all occur at slower > rates. > hanson wrote: Yossi, you sing the song of the Einstein Dingleberries. You express & parrot fantasies of deranged Jews and abberant goyim kikeophiles. There is not a singe instant where, in the local, testable neighborhood, humankind has been able to accelerate any ponderable body, bigger then atoms to relativistic speeds. -- Consider, there are N_A, 6E23 atoms needed to produce a handful of dirt. That's the amount of mass needed to produce a real solid ~5" disk... for which your relativity fails pitifully... > At least, you should toned your parroting down & said: To a (stationary) observer (outside the speeding frame) CBK processes may, perhaps, APPEAR to be slower. > Also, Youssi, don't tell anybody that you can't be really sure what happened because of it's relativistic speed, that the disk went by you... Except that its hypersonic boom knocked you out of your chair, and that you are ever more grateful that the relativistically speeding disk did not hit you head on.... ahahahaha.... > Of course, like all Einstein Dingleberries do, you may loudly disagree & prove your notion by simply providing the address of, and an interview with, Einstein's Younger Twin... Thanks for the laughs, Youssi... ahahahanson --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Thomas Heger on 3 Jul 2010 06:45 Yousuf Khan schrieb: > On 7/3/2010 9:11 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: >> On Jul 2, 4:51 pm, Yousuf Khan<bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> That's of course not true. There's plenty of things in the universe that >>> are reversible. Earth's orbit around the Sun, for example, is so >>> reversible that you can roll it back in time billions of years, and >>> still be able to tell where it was. You could also roll it forward >>> billions of years, and tell where it will be. >> -------------------------------------------------- >> >> My dear benighted fellow! Have you never heard of Henri Poincare and >> his work on the stability of the Solar System, and the discovery of >> deterministic chaos/nonlinear dynamical systems? Do you read current >> scientific papers? >> >> You are talking pre-Poincare 19th century fantasy physics which was >> wrong even back then. >> >> To espouse such nonsense today is pathetic! Any competent physicist >> will inform you that your statement is completely ridiculous and >> false, to boot. >> >> At least try to come up to speed with the 20th century, if you are not >> ready to go forth boldly into the 21st century. >> >> KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW, >> >> AND KNOW WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW. >> >> Both are important, Pilgrim. > > My dear Pilgrim, you have just now discovered why nobody takes you > seriously. Instead of engaging in discussion, you just put up your > defenses, spewed irrelevant gobbledygook and began name-calling. You'll > have to wait another several months for somebody listen to you again. > No, that's not true. I personally think Mr. Oldershaw is right and would like to support his position. He's among the very few, that researches a self-similar fractal approach. We only think, that our human Earth based scale is 'natural', but we have no reason to think this way, because we cannot compare our measures with some kind of unchangeable standards. The idea, that particle physics would provide us with such standards is - obviously- based on particles. But we cannot know, whether or not other observers would share our ideas about particles. I think btw that time behaves like an imaginary axis. Any object has its own and time is a local phenomenon, that counts some kind of ripples on the path. With the change of such an axis, we make things move. But we also make things radiate. Interesting is, that if we change the timeline and attach it to a moving particle, than it doesn't move (in its own FoR), but it also doesn't radiate. That means waves and particles are actually different aspects of the same thing. Than I think causality is going strictly forward and we cannot have time reversal. But we could have some substructure, that seems to run backwards in time. The is like a wave, that seem to run in the wrong direction, because it is a superposition of two waves. TH
From: JT on 3 Jul 2010 07:11
On 2 Juli, 22:57, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > On 7/3/2010 1:08 AM, JT wrote: > > > Well the spatial dimensions in special relativity is all fucked up. > > Since events are not local they may not behave the way we are > > accustomed to but they will abey the logic of causality in some form. > > So we have a timeline that is a rubberband but the reality outside the > > bubble of universe is still stringent in fact it will be stringent in > > every point of universe that studies our universe it will follow the > > line of causality but with both spatial and timelike distorsion, none > > of those is however proved. > > > But even if we suppose there is local timelines, the causality will > > measure and describe events in a logical consise and coherent way. And > > that is from any point that studies the event....s , in special > > relativity that is not the case however it is a faulthy theory, that > > can not give a coherent description of events separated by time and > > spatial. > > Well, if you think about it, in special relativity, all they are really > saying is that causality is slowed down at relativistic speeds. Chemical > reactions, biological processes, kinetic processes, all occur at slower > rates. > > Yousuf Khan No they make predictions of spatial separation and timelike separation that do not occur in reality, it is a faulthy theory it can not be used to predict where an object in mapped space will be. It us totally useless for navigational or ballistical purposes at speeds close to c. It is proved again and again that relativists can not give an answer to what position and space, an object at relativestic place will occupy. They are all jugglers dropping bananas behind the curtain, basicly their theory allways was in freefall but because of the limitations of the gedankens noone ever noticed. Einstein never dared to juggle with more then two bananas, special relativity is a very limited theory it is not even a theory it is all a dreamwork. JT |