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: Inertial on 21 Dec 2009 19:49 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b69788a0-1987-4334-9f90-7e477fe5c323(a)t42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > As a final point, the concept of change is required for prediction. > But change of physical state is not equal to movement of time. Change requires time and vice versa. If there were no time there would be no change .. if there is change, there must be time. Who says time "moves" anyway?
From: Inertial on 21 Dec 2009 19:52 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b69788a0-1987-4334-9f90-7e477fe5c323(a)t42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > change <> movement in time. Changes requires "movement" in time. Though you cannot really use the word "movement", as this implies a change of position over some period of time. The English language (and probably all human language) is not well suited for talking about time.
From: Inertial on 21 Dec 2009 19:57 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b69788a0-1987-4334-9f90-7e477fe5c323(a)t42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 21 Dec, 20:41, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > I've lost you. Neither the memory nor the imagination is evidence of > time. A system frozen in time, but not frozen in space - and you > notice that I reject the tautology that a system frozen in time is > frozen in space - would still be able to perform the function of > memorising and imagining. What does 'frozen in time mean'. Frozen means no change over time. So qualifying frozen with "in time" doesn't make sense. Frozen is implicitly 'in time'. "Frozen in space" doesn't make sense at all without there being time involved.
From: Inertial on 21 Dec 2009 20:00 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b69788a0-1987-4334-9f90-7e477fe5c323(a)t42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 21 Dec, 20:41, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> If events A and B are light-like separated >> (or slower), then they are always seen to occur in the same order. > > But that is not true. Yes .. it is. Order is always the same for events so separated. That means all observer will agree on the ordering of events > Clocks on GPS stations tick slower than on Earth > by virtue of their speed. Slowing events does not change their order > Events which would previously have happened > simultaneously, happen at different perceived-times when one is moving > at a different speed to the other. That doesn't make sense 'previously' .. if it was previous, its not the same events > Theoretically, with two identical > clocks it can be made that, where tick 2 on clock A would be expected > to precede tick 3 on clock B, instead tick 3 on clock B precedes tick > 2 on clock A. The sequence of events has observably reversed. Tick 2 on Clock A NEVER preceded tick 3 on clock B. The expectation of that was simply incorrect. nd all observers will agree with that. The ordering is not observer dependant in that case.
From: Inertial on 21 Dec 2009 20:01
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b69788a0-1987-4334-9f90-7e477fe5c323(a)t42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > I'm convinced after tens of hours of contemplation in total, and no > prior training in physics, that we must throw out the assumption of > constant movement forward in time. And if that sounds ludicrous, then > that is why I want someone to tell me why I'm wrong. Do you think physics says the the "movement in time" is constant? If so, you've not really understood physics |