The Dimension of Time
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Relativity Researcher: Increase Your Research Productivity with the Leading Web 2.0 Research Portal
Next: Radio Waves, Photons, and Wave Speed.
From: xxein on 23 Dec 2009 21:13 On Dec 20, 12:22 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear Ste: > > On Dec 20, 9:20 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 20 Dec, 03:17,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > On Dec 19, 5:18 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I was contemplating the laws of physics, as > > > > one does, and in the course of some basic > > > > research on the matter I came across the > > > > concept of the "arrow of time", and the > > > > statement that whereas one can move in > > > > both directions in space, currently we can > > > > only move forward in time. > > > > > Now I'm not an expert in physics, so > > > > perhaps this question may come across as > > > > ridiculously simple. But setting aside for > > > > one moment human perception and common > > > > sense, the question is this: exactly what > > > > leads us to conclude that we are constantly > > > > moving forward in time? > > > > We don't remember tomorrow. > > > Droll. But I ask the question in all > > seriousness, > > I gave an elegant (or at least not incorrect in any part) and reasoned > answer. > > > and because it strikes me that there is > > nothing that suggests an absolute constant > > movement forward along any spacial > > dimension, so why is there an assumption > > of constant movement forward along the > > time dimension (which introduces > > absurdities like travelling into the past)? > > Not an assumption. Based on evidence, the cause never follows the > effect. > > > On the subject of travelling into the > > past, how would travelling backwards in > > time, be distinguishable from simply > > restoring the universe to the same > > physical state as in the past (but which > > had not actually travelled "back in time" > > in any meaningful sense)? > > Violation of conservation of mass/energy. Violation of Pauli > exclusion principle. The same matter cannot be in the same Universe > twice, or at least it has never been seen to do so. There have been > SciFi stories of people that "aged" backwards, and remembered the > future but not the past... the bodies appeared to the rest of us as > moving forward. > > > Obviously I haven't posted here before, > > so I'm not sure whether there is anyone > > here who can discuss this at an > > appropriate level. > > If you want mathematics and appropriate basis in underlying and > related physical laws, you might post instead on > sci.physics.foundations. It is a moderated newsgroup, so it'll take a > while for your posts and replies to appear. > > > And more generally, I'm interested to > > know whether the assumption of forward > > movement is not just a product of > > subjective human intuitions (and > > bearing in mind that every paradigm > > shift in science has involved throwing > > out what was previously held as > > unquestionable). > > It is not an assumption. It is the result of experiment. Phenomenon > in systems have been found to be irreversible. "The Arrow of Time" > applies only to systems, much as "population mean" applies only to > populations. > > I'd suggest you question the "assumption" of gravity in a similar > way. Might as well try something that Nature can speak directly to > you about. > > David A. Smith- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: You said: "It is not an assumption. It is the result of experiment. Phenomenon in systems have been found to be irreversible. "The Arrow of Time" applies only to systems, much as "population mean" applies only to populations. I'd suggest you question the "assumption" of gravity in a similar way. Might as well try something that Nature can speak directly to you about." Experiments can cause assumptions that we find terribly wrong with a further study of them. Gravity is not immune to that despite your claim.
From: Ste on 24 Dec 2009 02:27 On 23 Dec, 23:32, jdawe <mrjd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 20, 10:18 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > the question is this: exactly what leads > > us to conclude that we are constantly moving forward in time? > > Well, > > We have time. > > or > > We have distance. > > Which are equally opposing. > > Which means we can: > > Invert time into distance. > > or > > Invert distance into time. > > In other words: > > The greater the distance we travel then the less time we will have. > > or > > The greater the time we have then the less the distance we will > travel. > > > 'constantly moving forward in time' > > Because time is opposed by distance you will never have 100% absolute > time. > > There must always be some distance travelled in time. > > or > > There must always be some time used no matter the amount of distance > we cover. > > So, > > Even at the speed of light time may run very slow but it will never > 'stop' so there is no time. > > The fact that there will always be: > > Some time in distance. > > or > > Some distance in time. > > allows: > > Time to invert back into distance. > > or > > Distance to invert back into time. I think heuristically there is some correspondence between our views. But there is still an elephant in the room: you have described only a relationship between movement in time and movement in distance. You have shown anywhere that time is always flowing - indeed, by your own reasoning, matter that is not moving in space is not moving in time either, and that is exactly my conclusion. Time moves, but only in a relative sense, and only when we are moving spatially.
From: Ste on 24 Dec 2009 03:04 On 24 Dec, 02:13, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Dec 20, 12:22 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Ste: > > > On Dec 20, 9:20 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 20 Dec, 03:17,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > On Dec 19, 5:18 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I was contemplating the laws of physics, as > > > > > one does, and in the course of some basic > > > > > research on the matter I came across the > > > > > concept of the "arrow of time", and the > > > > > statement that whereas one can move in > > > > > both directions in space, currently we can > > > > > only move forward in time. > > > > > > Now I'm not an expert in physics, so > > > > > perhaps this question may come across as > > > > > ridiculously simple. But setting aside for > > > > > one moment human perception and common > > > > > sense, the question is this: exactly what > > > > > leads us to conclude that we are constantly > > > > > moving forward in time? > > > > > We don't remember tomorrow. > > > > Droll. But I ask the question in all > > > seriousness, > > > I gave an elegant (or at least not incorrect in any part) and reasoned > > answer. > > > > and because it strikes me that there is > > > nothing that suggests an absolute constant > > > movement forward along any spacial > > > dimension, so why is there an assumption > > > of constant movement forward along the > > > time dimension (which introduces > > > absurdities like travelling into the past)? > > > Not an assumption. Based on evidence, the cause never follows the > > effect. > > > > On the subject of travelling into the > > > past, how would travelling backwards in > > > time, be distinguishable from simply > > > restoring the universe to the same > > > physical state as in the past (but which > > > had not actually travelled "back in time" > > > in any meaningful sense)? > > > Violation of conservation of mass/energy. Violation of Pauli > > exclusion principle. The same matter cannot be in the same Universe > > twice, or at least it has never been seen to do so. There have been > > SciFi stories of people that "aged" backwards, and remembered the > > future but not the past... the bodies appeared to the rest of us as > > moving forward. > > > > Obviously I haven't posted here before, > > > so I'm not sure whether there is anyone > > > here who can discuss this at an > > > appropriate level. > > > If you want mathematics and appropriate basis in underlying and > > related physical laws, you might post instead on > > sci.physics.foundations. It is a moderated newsgroup, so it'll take a > > while for your posts and replies to appear. > > > > And more generally, I'm interested to > > > know whether the assumption of forward > > > movement is not just a product of > > > subjective human intuitions (and > > > bearing in mind that every paradigm > > > shift in science has involved throwing > > > out what was previously held as > > > unquestionable). > > > It is not an assumption. It is the result of experiment. Phenomenon > > in systems have been found to be irreversible. "The Arrow of Time" > > applies only to systems, much as "population mean" applies only to > > populations. > > > I'd suggest you question the "assumption" of gravity in a similar > > way. Might as well try something that Nature can speak directly to > > you about. > > > David A. Smith- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > xxein: You said: "It is not an assumption. It is the result of > experiment. Phenomenon > in systems have been found to be irreversible. "The Arrow of Time" > applies only to systems, much as "population mean" applies only to > populations. > > I'd suggest you question the "assumption" of gravity in a similar > way. Might as well try something that Nature can speak directly to > you about." > > Experiments can cause assumptions that we find terribly wrong with a > further study of them. Gravity is not immune to that despite your > claim. As to gravity, I'm still confused about why gravity is supposed to "bend spacetime". I don't see why the simple model of gravity as a force, and the photon as a massive particle, is so untenable. Personally I have a theory that gravity and photons are bed-fellows in some respect. We know that gravity can become so strong as to cause all EMR to accelerate inwards towards the centre of the mass. The question is how does energy eventually escape. Well, it escapes by EMR. As gravity causes volume to crunch, eventually enough energy is concentrated that photons with extremely high energy content are developed (i.e. extremely high frequency gamma radiation). They give up much of this energy escaping the gravitational pull of the black hole, yielding the lower-frequency EMR that we actually see emitted from black holes. In this way, each time gravity crunches, the energy concentration becomes such that mass is then ejected in the form of photons, and this causes reduction in the mass of the black hole (and therefore it's gravitational pull), and ultimately drives expansion of distance between the black hole and objects that absorb the photons (due to inertia of the photons). Then, when when the EMR emitted by an object stops being sufficient as against gravity to cause expansion between objects, gravity causes the distance between them to contract and eventually they crunch again.
From: xxein on 24 Dec 2009 17:10 On Dec 24, 3:04 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 24 Dec, 02:13,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 20, 12:22 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > Dear Ste: > > > > On Dec 20, 9:20 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 20 Dec, 03:17,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 19, 5:18 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I was contemplating the laws of physics, as > > > > > > one does, and in the course of some basic > > > > > > research on the matter I came across the > > > > > > concept of the "arrow of time", and the > > > > > > statement that whereas one can move in > > > > > > both directions in space, currently we can > > > > > > only move forward in time. > > > > > > > Now I'm not an expert in physics, so > > > > > > perhaps this question may come across as > > > > > > ridiculously simple. But setting aside for > > > > > > one moment human perception and common > > > > > > sense, the question is this: exactly what > > > > > > leads us to conclude that we are constantly > > > > > > moving forward in time? > > > > > > We don't remember tomorrow. > > > > > Droll. But I ask the question in all > > > > seriousness, > > > > I gave an elegant (or at least not incorrect in any part) and reasoned > > > answer. > > > > > and because it strikes me that there is > > > > nothing that suggests an absolute constant > > > > movement forward along any spacial > > > > dimension, so why is there an assumption > > > > of constant movement forward along the > > > > time dimension (which introduces > > > > absurdities like travelling into the past)? > > > > Not an assumption. Based on evidence, the cause never follows the > > > effect. > > > > > On the subject of travelling into the > > > > past, how would travelling backwards in > > > > time, be distinguishable from simply > > > > restoring the universe to the same > > > > physical state as in the past (but which > > > > had not actually travelled "back in time" > > > > in any meaningful sense)? > > > > Violation of conservation of mass/energy. Violation of Pauli > > > exclusion principle. The same matter cannot be in the same Universe > > > twice, or at least it has never been seen to do so. There have been > > > SciFi stories of people that "aged" backwards, and remembered the > > > future but not the past... the bodies appeared to the rest of us as > > > moving forward. > > > > > Obviously I haven't posted here before, > > > > so I'm not sure whether there is anyone > > > > here who can discuss this at an > > > > appropriate level. > > > > If you want mathematics and appropriate basis in underlying and > > > related physical laws, you might post instead on > > > sci.physics.foundations. It is a moderated newsgroup, so it'll take a > > > while for your posts and replies to appear. > > > > > And more generally, I'm interested to > > > > know whether the assumption of forward > > > > movement is not just a product of > > > > subjective human intuitions (and > > > > bearing in mind that every paradigm > > > > shift in science has involved throwing > > > > out what was previously held as > > > > unquestionable). > > > > It is not an assumption. It is the result of experiment. Phenomenon > > > in systems have been found to be irreversible. "The Arrow of Time" > > > applies only to systems, much as "population mean" applies only to > > > populations. > > > > I'd suggest you question the "assumption" of gravity in a similar > > > way. Might as well try something that Nature can speak directly to > > > you about. > > > > David A. Smith- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > >xxein: You said: "It is not an assumption. It is the result of > > experiment. Phenomenon > > in systems have been found to be irreversible. "The Arrow of Time" > > applies only to systems, much as "population mean" applies only to > > populations. > > > I'd suggest you question the "assumption" of gravity in a similar > > way. Might as well try something that Nature can speak directly to > > you about." > > > Experiments can cause assumptions that we find terribly wrong with a > > further study of them. Gravity is not immune to that despite your > > claim. > > As to gravity, I'm still confused about why gravity is supposed to > "bend spacetime". I don't see why the simple model of gravity as a > force, and the photon as a massive particle, is so untenable. > > Personally I have a theory that gravity and photons are bed-fellows in > some respect. We know that gravity can become so strong as to cause > all EMR to accelerate inwards towards the centre of the mass. The > question is how does energy eventually escape. Well, it escapes by > EMR. As gravity causes volume to crunch, eventually enough energy is > concentrated that photons with extremely high energy content are > developed (i.e. extremely high frequency gamma radiation). They give > up much of this energy escaping the gravitational pull of the black > hole, yielding the lower-frequency EMR that we actually see emitted > from black holes. > > In this way, each time gravity crunches, the energy concentration > becomes such that mass is then ejected in the form of photons, and > this causes reduction in the mass of the black hole (and therefore > it's gravitational pull), and ultimately drives expansion of distance > between the black hole and objects that absorb the photons (due to > inertia of the photons). > > Then, when when the EMR emitted by an object stops being sufficient as > against gravity to cause expansion between objects, gravity causes the > distance between them to contract and eventually they crunch again.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: That was quite good but inaccurate. It helps to think for the reasons why we have different types of novae. It is conditional upon the richness or sparsity of the surroundings, is it not? If there were no matter (concentrated energy, i.e. m=e/c^2) nearby that provides for the "Kibbles and Bits" to a massive central object, the object would not have become that massive in the first place. But there is energy in an otherwise (thought to be) vacuum of space. It is essentially just less for the grabbing such that it is ~1/val(c^2) that of mass. There are still three remaining aspects of this, however. Why does mass form, why does it explode and why is there a gravity? We don't know why there might have been a release of a primordial energy in the original first place, but we can suspect degenerated successions and sibling behaviors. None were perfect expansions. We invented the word "chaos" to describe this. Nonetheless, imperfect expansion occurred. What were the consequences? A lumpiness we can describe as eddies in an outflowing stream. As such, these eddies use up a lot of their outward expansion velocity by their change in directional speed. But they still expand outward because they still receive a push from the energy expansion left from the original explosion and that becomes weaker with time. These eddies become proto-mass. They grow larger with the additional outward energy over time and form eddies within themselves. This procession can occur in self-similar fashion and degenerate further until what we describe as a measureable atomic scale (or smaller). Certainly no one thinks that there is mass or matter that does not have such an internal mechanism working within it, do they? They can form to different sizes and separations (cosmos) and they can interact as chance would have it. This is the primary cause of a destruction and energy release. But it is not gravity yet. As these energies play their games, there is an energy equilibrium that comes into play also. As long as any eddy can maintain its form (a semi-separate and smaller energy equilibrium transfer due to size), it will appear as though what we discern as mass - is mass gravitating toward mass also. But only on a certain scalability. If it is bigger on OUR scale of measurement, it is gravity. On smaller scales we call it charge, spin etc. This is how we describe the results of our probings. Notice that there isn't a gravity in a quantum theory. We just choose how we wish to describe the physic at different scales just as an electron has no effect for the cosmological gravity. We invent massless particles and do not allow that 'everything' may be just an equilibrium of energy expressed as scalable adiabatics due to an energy transfer of form and size. We know enough to get along but can only believe how it works.
From: Ste on 25 Dec 2009 01:53
On 24 Dec, 22:10, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Dec 24, 3:04 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 24 Dec, 02:13,xxein<xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > On Dec 20, 12:22 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > Dear Ste: > > > > > On Dec 20, 9:20 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 20 Dec, 03:17,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 19, 5:18 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I was contemplating the laws of physics, as > > > > > > > one does, and in the course of some basic > > > > > > > research on the matter I came across the > > > > > > > concept of the "arrow of time", and the > > > > > > > statement that whereas one can move in > > > > > > > both directions in space, currently we can > > > > > > > only move forward in time. > > > > > > > > Now I'm not an expert in physics, so > > > > > > > perhaps this question may come across as > > > > > > > ridiculously simple. But setting aside for > > > > > > > one moment human perception and common > > > > > > > sense, the question is this: exactly what > > > > > > > leads us to conclude that we are constantly > > > > > > > moving forward in time? > > > > > > > We don't remember tomorrow. > > > > > > Droll. But I ask the question in all > > > > > seriousness, > > > > > I gave an elegant (or at least not incorrect in any part) and reasoned > > > > answer. > > > > > > and because it strikes me that there is > > > > > nothing that suggests an absolute constant > > > > > movement forward along any spacial > > > > > dimension, so why is there an assumption > > > > > of constant movement forward along the > > > > > time dimension (which introduces > > > > > absurdities like travelling into the past)? > > > > > Not an assumption. Based on evidence, the cause never follows the > > > > effect. > > > > > > On the subject of travelling into the > > > > > past, how would travelling backwards in > > > > > time, be distinguishable from simply > > > > > restoring the universe to the same > > > > > physical state as in the past (but which > > > > > had not actually travelled "back in time" > > > > > in any meaningful sense)? > > > > > Violation of conservation of mass/energy. Violation of Pauli > > > > exclusion principle. The same matter cannot be in the same Universe > > > > twice, or at least it has never been seen to do so. There have been > > > > SciFi stories of people that "aged" backwards, and remembered the > > > > future but not the past... the bodies appeared to the rest of us as > > > > moving forward. > > > > > > Obviously I haven't posted here before, > > > > > so I'm not sure whether there is anyone > > > > > here who can discuss this at an > > > > > appropriate level. > > > > > If you want mathematics and appropriate basis in underlying and > > > > related physical laws, you might post instead on > > > > sci.physics.foundations. It is a moderated newsgroup, so it'll take a > > > > while for your posts and replies to appear. > > > > > > And more generally, I'm interested to > > > > > know whether the assumption of forward > > > > > movement is not just a product of > > > > > subjective human intuitions (and > > > > > bearing in mind that every paradigm > > > > > shift in science has involved throwing > > > > > out what was previously held as > > > > > unquestionable). > > > > > It is not an assumption. It is the result of experiment. Phenomenon > > > > in systems have been found to be irreversible. "The Arrow of Time" > > > > applies only to systems, much as "population mean" applies only to > > > > populations. > > > > > I'd suggest you question the "assumption" of gravity in a similar > > > > way. Might as well try something that Nature can speak directly to > > > > you about. > > > > > David A. Smith- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > >xxein: You said: "It is not an assumption. It is the result of > > > experiment. Phenomenon > > > in systems have been found to be irreversible. "The Arrow of Time" > > > applies only to systems, much as "population mean" applies only to > > > populations. > > > > I'd suggest you question the "assumption" of gravity in a similar > > > way. Might as well try something that Nature can speak directly to > > > you about." > > > > Experiments can cause assumptions that we find terribly wrong with a > > > further study of them. Gravity is not immune to that despite your > > > claim. > > > As to gravity, I'm still confused about why gravity is supposed to > > "bend spacetime". I don't see why the simple model of gravity as a > > force, and the photon as a massive particle, is so untenable. > > > Personally I have a theory that gravity and photons are bed-fellows in > > some respect. We know that gravity can become so strong as to cause > > all EMR to accelerate inwards towards the centre of the mass. The > > question is how does energy eventually escape. Well, it escapes by > > EMR. As gravity causes volume to crunch, eventually enough energy is > > concentrated that photons with extremely high energy content are > > developed (i.e. extremely high frequency gamma radiation). They give > > up much of this energy escaping the gravitational pull of the black > > hole, yielding the lower-frequency EMR that we actually see emitted > > from black holes. > > > In this way, each time gravity crunches, the energy concentration > > becomes such that mass is then ejected in the form of photons, and > > this causes reduction in the mass of the black hole (and therefore > > it's gravitational pull), and ultimately drives expansion of distance > > between the black hole and objects that absorb the photons (due to > > inertia of the photons). > > > Then, when when the EMR emitted by an object stops being sufficient as > > against gravity to cause expansion between objects, gravity causes the > > distance between them to contract and eventually they crunch again.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > xxein: That was quite good but inaccurate. It helps to think for the > reasons why we have different types of novae. It is conditional upon > the richness or sparsity of the surroundings, is it not? If there > were no matter (concentrated energy, i.e. m=e/c^2) nearby that > provides for the "Kibbles and Bits" to a massive central object, the > object would not have become that massive in the first place. But > there is energy in an otherwise (thought to be) vacuum of space. It > is essentially just less for the grabbing such that it is ~1/val(c^2) > that of mass. But the point is that gravity is a force with infinite span. Eventually, matter will be pulled together no matter what the separation distance between them, even if such a process takes a near- infinite amount of time. So, no matter what happens, massive central objects will always form (and eventually, black holes). The only question is of how long it will take. And when the black hole does form, matter is ejected again in the form of EMR. > There are still three remaining aspects of this, however. Why does > mass form, why does it explode and why is there a gravity? In the context of physics, I think one should always be careful to ask "how", not "why". > We don't know why there might have been a release of a primordial > energy in the original first place, but we can suspect degenerated > successions and sibling behaviors. None were perfect expansions. We > invented the word "chaos" to describe this. Nonetheless, imperfect > expansion occurred. My view is that the universe is both infinitely large and infinitely small, infinite in length, and infinite in "time" as we know it. Whatever is outside of it, and whatever caused it, will simply never be known. > What were the consequences? A lumpiness we can describe as eddies in > an outflowing stream. As such, these eddies use up a lot of their > outward expansion velocity by their change in directional speed. But > they still expand outward because they still receive a push from the > energy expansion left from the original explosion and that becomes > weaker with time. Indeed. I predict a big crunch almost an infinite number of years from now. > These eddies become proto-mass. They grow larger with the additional > outward energy over time and form eddies within themselves. This > procession can occur in self-similar fashion and degenerate further > until what we describe as a measureable atomic scale (or smaller). > Certainly no one thinks that there is mass or matter that does not > have such an internal mechanism working within it, do they? > > They can form to different sizes and separations (cosmos) and they can > interact as chance would have it. This is the primary cause of a > destruction and energy release. But it is not gravity yet. > > As these energies play their games, there is an energy equilibrium > that comes into play also. As long as any eddy can maintain its form > (a semi-separate and smaller energy equilibrium transfer due to size), > it will appear as though what we discern as mass - is mass gravitating > toward mass also. But only on a certain scalability. If it is bigger > on OUR scale of measurement, it is gravity. On smaller scales we call > it charge, spin etc. Personally I think it should be possible to boil down the material world down to something like energy fields, their momentum, and a fundamental force or two. You shouldn't need any other concepts to understand physics. > This is how we describe the results of our > probings. Notice that there isn't a gravity in a quantum theory. We > just choose how we wish to describe the physic at different scales > just as an electron has no effect for the cosmological gravity. We > invent massless particles and do not allow that 'everything' may be > just an equilibrium of energy expressed as scalable adiabatics due to > an energy transfer of form and size. I think the idea of a "massless" particle is absurd. Mass *is* energy. > We know enough to get along but can only believe how it works. Lol. Indeed. |