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: Ste on 21 Dec 2009 22:38 On 22 Dec, 00:49, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(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? Change doesn't require movement of time, except in the tautological sense. Anyway, it turns out this theory of mine isn't new - it's called the block universe theory, and apparently one author refers to the 4th dimension as "pime", to distinguish it from what he considers a figment of the human consciousness called time.
From: Inertial on 21 Dec 2009 22:50 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c311d8b8-80c7-4748-a3b2-f2dfead240c6(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On 22 Dec, 00:49, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(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? > > Change doesn't require movement of time, I said it requires "time". Not "movement in time". There is no such thing as 'movement' in time .. it doesn't make sense as an expression. There can be no change (ie different states for a given system) without time > except in the tautological > sense. Anyway, it turns out this theory of mine isn't new - it's > called the block universe theory, Then you don't understand block universe theory very well. > and apparently one author refers to > the 4th dimension as "pime", to distinguish it from what he considers > a figment of the human consciousness called time. Probably wise, as "time" has so many connotations
From: Inertial on 21 Dec 2009 22:57 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:00b49b07-ecb4-4133-9e3f-2c58ae8b0826(a)s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com... > On 22 Dec, 00:46, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(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: >> >> Dear Ste: >> >> >> Now to the rest of your post... >> >> >> On Dec 21, 12:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On 20 Dec, 17:22,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >> >> > > > > 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 schizophrenics often hear voices, >> >> > but I was hoping for a more detailed >> >> > justification than simply appeal to >> >> > bare human perception or intuition. >> >> >> You keep asking why do *we* think this or that, but you don't want to >> >> know *why* we see things that way? >> >> > No, it's just I was hoping that some answers would be selected out of >> > this discussion, namely those which appeal to the obviousness of what >> > is perceived by the human senses in daily life. >> >> >> Who is schizophrenic? >> >> > The aforementioned schizophrenic who hears voices. >> >> >> Is our >> >> belief driven by our perception, or not? >> >> > At least partially it is. >> >> >> > > > 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. >> >> >> > But isn't that a tautology? >> >> >> Spark leads to flame is not a tautology. >> >> > Let's break it down then. "Cause precedes effect." >> >> > Cause n. "that which precedes effect" >> >> No .. cause is what makes an effect happen .. it does not HAVE to precede >> it. Indeed .. we find experiments where cause comes AFTER the effect > > I'd be interested to know what experiments those are, although I doubt > they truly violate the principle of cause and effect Look up delayed choice quantum slit experiments. > (which is > *necessarily* true, remember, by virtue of its definition). No it is not .. YOUR definition of cause is nonsense, in that it does not define 'cause' at all. What you have given a definition of is 'past' .. not 'cause'. Try this definition: * A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect
From: Ste on 21 Dec 2009 23:00 On 22 Dec, 01:00, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(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 By "would previously" I was meaning to say "if not having moved away from each other in the 4th dimension, would" > > 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. I am confused, because as I understand the concept (please correct me...), tick 3B will indeed precede 2A, if before tick 1A, clock B had been to near the speed of light and then returned to earth (in both speed and time), such that 2B had already occurred before clock B returned to earth (and before 1A).
From: Ste on 21 Dec 2009 23:02
On 22 Dec, 01:01, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(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 Obviously I don't think that, because throughout this thread I've referred to "movement along the 4th dimension". What I am challenging is that we are constantly moving forward in time *at all*. |