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 23:43 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:27885633-ca20-48e7-9700-15aa14293019(a)b32g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > 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" So you are talking about two different possible scenarios .. not the ordering of events in reality. That is the problem. To get a difference in order of events, depending on frame of reference, then they have to be space-like separated. In which case there can be no causal link between the events (well, usually at least) >> > 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, Yes > 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). Eh? Please try explaining that scenario again more clearly.
From: Inertial on 21 Dec 2009 23:43 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:7qi0j51bed0o0vhmrk2rusleslgj4r7pcb(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:58:13 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >> >>[...] >> >>Now would be a great time to tell everyone why you think there are three >>subdimensions of time and how space is logarithmic. >> >>Or did you silently drop those ideas because they were ridiculous? > > I'm surprised you are against the idea. Time dilation requires an > additional > time dimension. BAHAHAHA .. you have no idea.
From: Inertial on 21 Dec 2009 23:55 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:r6i0j590354vnu3rmomr12rl7asfdlprcs(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:52:25 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:0qfui5l8kkacoeocb8fosn38n7glbf6lqc(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:15:45 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> Some say 'change' exists but not time. They are confused because >>>>> changes >>>>> involve 'rates' which involve time. >>>> >>>>You cannot have change without time >>> >>> For once you and I agree. ....pop the corks. >> >>Yay !! >> >>>>>>That it is seen to 'flow' is possibly a psychological construction. > > >>> every entity of which we are aware reacts with our physical senses or >>> interacts >>> with the physical world, , >>> The nnly way we know about 'action at a distance' for instance, is the >>> way >>> it >>> causes things to accelerate. So any investigation of it, including the >>> 'why', >>> comes under the heading of physics. >> >>You mean how it works. 'Why' is a question of a purpose. Most such >>questions of 'why' are really questions of 'how does it happen' >> >>>>>>> One might also ask for a physical explanation of >>>>>>> why 'space' exists. One day these questions will be answered, just >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> 'action-at-a-distance' will. After all, physics is only a few >>>>>>> hundred >>>>>>> years old >>>>>>> and still very much in its infancy. >>>>>> >>>>>>True. Though usually questions of 'why' things exist is beyond >>>>>>physics >>>>>>. >>>>> >>>>> Explaining a metre is beyond your level of physics. >>>> >>>>Hardly. >>>> >>>>>>'why' they behave as they do can often be explained .. but then it is >>>>>>really >>>>>>is more of a question of 'how' it works .. not 'why' (ie giving a >>>>>>purpose >>>>>>to >>>>>>it). >>>>> >>>>> Nonsense. >>>> >>>>No >>>> >>>>> The 'why' can always be explained to a certain level....in terms of >>>>> known axioms. Lightning and thunder are prime examples...but you >>>>> probably >>>>> still >>>>> think Zeus is responsible. >>>> >>>>No .. at those levels it is a how ... what other processes interact to >>>>give >>>>the results. >>>> >>>>"Why" is a question of purpose .. some sort 'meaning' .. that is not the >>>>domain of science. Though you woulnd't know as your grasp of science is >>>>so >>>>feeble >>> >>> "Why does a car move when you push it?" >> >>You mean 'how does your pushing it make it move'. > > No i didn't. I meant WHY. Which means 'how does your pushing it make it move'. >>> Is that question physics of philosophy? >> >>How pushing it makes it move is physics. > > So is 'WHY pushing it....' Which is answered by saying HOW pushing it works >>> It isn't really any different from any 'why' question. >> >>As I said .. many 'why' questions are 'how does it work' questions. Not >>why >>it is that way. > > Well I can't see WHY there is a limit as to where a 'why' question has to > end. Why not? >>> I agree it appeas to be a tautology...that's what I said....but it is >>> only >>> so >>> because we believe there is only one time dimension. >>> >>> How would we know if there was another one? >> >>We are not aware of one, and so saying we experience time as one second >>per >>second is nonsense if we don't experience more than one time dimension. > > I am aware of another one. You on drugs again? > I can sense time flowing in time, at 1 second per > second. Of course one second is one second for you. That doesn't imply any sort of other temporal dimension. > I can also sense three spatial dimensions even though waving a metre rod > around > in any direction doesn't reveal them. It is the same rod. BAHAHAHA >>> After all, there is no way to absolutely discriminate between x, y and z >>> directions. >> >>Who says everything must be absolute? But we can experience the >>three-dimensionality of space > > I say we also sense one time dimension moving wrt another time dimension. Then you're deluded or stoned >>>>>>> Then ask yourself this question,"If I wasn't alive, what year would >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> be?" >>>>>> >>>>>>When? >>>>> >>>>> Precisely. >>>> >>>>The answer to "What year is it" depends on when you ask it. >>> >>> You aren't alive to ask. >> >>That doesn't mean that time does not exist .. only that you are not alive >>to >>experience it > > Correct...but it means ALL dates have the same priority....or probability > of > existing. They all existed, exist, will 'exist (now)' .. when 'now' is there. 'Now' is a psychological construction. And 'exist' depends on 'now' (we say things no longer exist if they do not exist 'now'). > Why should it be December 2009 if I wasn't alive? It won't be. When you're dead it will be / was different date (unless you die in the next few days). When now is December 1909, you are not alive. When now is December 2109 you are not alive. > It might just as > well be 100000000BC. With your grasp of physics, I think that's where you are :):) But I do understand what you are saying. My 'now' of yesterday is as real as my 'now' of a year ago which is as real as my 'now' now. So why say one is more real than the other?
From: Ste on 22 Dec 2009 01:35 On 22 Dec, 01:49, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > 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" > > Effect n. "something caused" > > > By these definitions, "cause precedes effect" is > > a tautology. And to define tautology: > > > Tautology n. "a compound proposition which is > > unconditionally true" > > Does not address either spark or flame. Spark n. "A small fiery particle, ... that which ignites" Ignite v. "heat to the point of combustion" Flame n. "The state of visible combustion" The only reason "spark leads to flame" is not a tautology is because a spark does not necessarily lead to a flame, whereas cause does necessarily lead to effect. > > > Memory laid into an existing > > > knowledge base is not a tautology. > > > 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. > > Memory is a chemical change in the brain. Existing memories are used > but to categorize the datumn, and are also affected by said datumn. > You are asking about the "one wayness" of time... can we not drift too > far from that at this point? I agree with you on memory. And yes, we can continue to discuss time being one way. > > > > By definition, the cause precedes the > > > > effect, and it relies on a model of > > > > time that is ever-moving-forward. > > > > It does not rely on a preexisting "model". > > > Everything is a model. > > No, constructs of the human mind are models. Indeed, as is time. > > But if you prefer a different term, then let me > > say "it relies on an understanding of time that > > is ever-moving-forward". > > We don't see things getting younger. Yes we do. A 40 year old egg turns into a 1 year old child. Ageing is merely change, and we often see change backwards - the falling plate being glued together for example (Humpty Dumpty was a more difficult case, evidently). > We don't remember tomorrow, > today. Yes, we call remembering tomorrow the act of "imagination". > The model resolves from the facts. Yes, the shape of the > model is constrained by the mind that forms it... Indeed. > > > > We know from experiments showing "time > > > > dilation" that where event A would normally > > > > be observed to precede event B, it can be > > > > made to happen that event B will observably > > > > precede event A. > > > > No, it cannot in general. > > > Is there some difference in meaning here between > > saying "it cannot" and "it cannot in general". > > The following sentence. You snip and comment too soon. > > > > 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. I'm afraid I don't understand why. > > Clocks on GPS stations tick slower than on Earth > > by virtue of their speed. Events which would > > previously have happened simultaneously, happen > > at different perceived-times when one is moving > > at a different speed to the other. > > This does not place B before A. Please keep your eye on the ball. > > > 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. > > A light signal is produced by A, and when received at B, B happens. > All observers will see A happen before B. Your "mental construct" > applies to something else. I'm afraid either you have not understood my model, or I have misunderstood the effects of matter travelling through space at near- light-speed. > > > > But rather than assuming that the forward > > > > progression of time "slowed down" for the > > > > material phenomenon responsible for event > > > > B, why not simply think in terms of the > > > > events having moved away from each other > > > > in time (without requiring any overall > > > > movement forward)? > > > > Mox nix. (A distinction without a difference.) > > > The difference is that a change of speed = a > > change in the value of the 4th dimension. > > NO! A change in speed produces a change in the *difference* between > two events (say clock ticks) between the rest frame and the moving > frame. I don't understand how that leads to "no!". If there is an increased difference between two events, then they have moved away from each other in pime. And when they return to the same location in pime (i.e. accelerate to the same speed), one clock will lag in time. > > And equality of speed = value of the 4th dimension > > is constant. When two objects travel at the same > > speed, they *stand still* in time (relative to any > > frame of reference). > > This "definition" is entirely untenable. Why? > > 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. > > It is your fantasy, *you* poke holes in it. Lol. It is impossible to establish your own sanity. > Make some (even > qualitative) predictions and lets see if it can be observed. That would be getting ahead of myself. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > It is certainly true that to change the > > > > state of part of the present universe > > > > would consume a great deal of energy > > > > elsewhere in the universe - such that, > > > > overall, the universe was not in an > > > > identical state as in the past. > > > > Yet we see "identical" physics displayed for > > > the last 13+ billion years, with a monotonic > > > shift in the fine structure constant of 1 part > > > in 10^8 in that time. > > > Without a frame of reference, 13 billion years > > may not be a very long time. > > We have a reference. "Years". Compare and contrast to the length of > human lifetime, or how long it takes someone to read this thread. Yes, but then it's a human-centric frame of reference. The real issue is that the fine structure constant changes at all - how quickly is neither here nor there. > > And if a "fundamental constant" like the fine > > structure constant is changing, then clearly the > > present laws of physics aren't complete. > > Well we agree on that. They aren't complete. Everyone else knows > this. Science is not Religion. We don't have a deity to hand down > the final writ. Indeed. > > > > But let us consider time travel. Sending > > > > matter back into the past would lead to > > > > mass/energy being lost from the present, > > > > and deposited in the past, yes? > > > > Yes, and doubled-up for the duration of its stay. > > > Indeed. > > > > > And if energy is robbed from the future > > > > and deposited in the past, then really > > > > one may have described the same process > > > > as robbing energy from half of the > > > > universe, to fund the restoration of > > > > another part of the universe. > > > > Not really, since the matter will eventually > > > propagate forward to the point of its departure, > > > if nothing else were to occur. > > > How so? By the inexorable march of time? That > > cracks me up. > > You have a watch. Let's say it is a Rolex knock-off. Indeed it is. I like to call it a Faux-lex. > It indicates > the instant of New Years the instant you send it back one hour into > the past. Before 23:00:00 on 2009-dec-31, you have one watch with > random time indicated. Between 23:00:00 on 2009-dec-31 and New Years > instant, how many watches do you have? How many watches do you have > after that instant? This rests on the premise that matter travels through time constantly (so that something sent to the past catches up with the future), when of course my premise is that time doesn't work like this. The past exists only in our memories, the future in our imaginations, and both within our minds. The idea of sending a watch into the past is as absurd as "sending your imagination into your memory" - it can be done theoretically by changing the state of the brain, but it doesn't involve pime travel. > > > You have a > > > doubling of matter for some finite span. > > > Not a "doubling". The matter is not doubled. Merely > > moved in the 4th dimension. If I borrow money from > > a bank, I don't "double" my assets. I merely use > > (if you will bear the analogy) future assets for > > present purposes - there is no overall gain, merely > > movement in the 4th dimension. > > Does not apply. Answer the questions above. I have answered it. A "doubling" is not possible, and is based on a faulty premise that one can travel backwards in time, when in fact one can only move towards or away in time. > > > Or if the trip is into the future (ala. The > > > Time Machine), then the matter is missing for > > > that time. > > > Why do we bear such absurdities? Why not just > > say that the past exists only in our memories, > > the future only in our imaginations, and the > > perceived passage of time is not equivalent to > > movement in the fourth dimension? > > Why do you write answers in the order they are asked, and under the > statements / questions made? We are trying to describe the regular > change in the world around us, a change that is written in rocks, the > minds of even small animals. You seek only to say "it doesn't matter, > because I am intellectually opposed to such description". How is the > position you were at when your odometer reads 1000, different from the > position you are at when it reads 1001? You are always "there", you > always have some speed, some light, some scenery. What is your point? > > > > Thus, how would a system restored to a > > > > particular state by consuming energy > > > > from a different place in time, be any > > > > different to a system restored to > > > > particular state by consuming energy from > > > > a different place in space? > > > > Gravitational effects different, spacetime > > > would have to adjust. > > > But spacetime would also have to adjust if > > matter/energy is moved in the 4th dimension. > > That is what we are talking about. Indeed, so the point is that you are either left with a parallel universe, or a loop in time. Why not discard both possibilities, and also discard the assumption of time moving inexorably (usually forward)? > > Even if we tolerate the hypothesis of past and > > future, the past would not be identical by > > virtue of the matter transported back. > > Correct. > > > The future would change by virtue of the matter > > transported forward. > > Splitting of timelines, correct. So we're into parallel universes. I say nonsense. > > Therefore even time travel could not restore > > the past to its *exact* state, because from > > the very moment you landed in the past, the > > universe would adjust in response to your > > presence. > > Sure. > > > Why not instead discard the notion of past and > > future? > > We lose the ability to describe the terrain. Why not acknowledge that > you have Asperger's, cannot get past this obsession, and seek > professional help? Haha. Believe it or not, I've never really been interested in physics, and I've never studied it - this is not something that has been boiling away, it really is something that I've spend merely a few hours over the past few days thinking about. The question came to me simply because I asked myself "if relativity holds true, then why does time move inexorably forward", and of course I quickly concluded that it doesn't, and that time can only be described in terms of relative distance from a present reference point. Of course this fits like a jigsaw piece into the rest of my worldview - I'm an objectivist, materialist, determinist, intellectual nihilist, etc. > > Why not start talking of the movment of the > > 4th dimension as being something other > > than that measured by the ticking of a clock? > > What is the sound of one hand clapping? It is the sound of the fingers slapping the palm on the same hand - answer courtesy of Bart Simpson. > > > > Would the two not be indistinguishable > > > > by reference to their internal state? > > > > No. > > > Indeed. So energy is conserved through all > > 4 dimensions. > > Energy is from where the dimensions arise, IMO. Dimensions are just a construct, and energy is useless as a means of distinguishing anything from anything else (because everything is energy except nothing). > > > > If not, then why treat the dimension of > > > > time differently from the dimensions of > > > > space? > > > > We don't. That is what relativity is all > > > about. Proper displacement: > > > s^2 = - (c/\t)^2 + (/\x^2 + /\y^2 + /\x^2) > > > ... typically the only thing we have different > > > is the units. I'd recommend "Spacetime Physics" > > > by Taylor and Wheeler, which has as much > > > or as little mathematics as you'd wish. > > > What I'm saying is that we treat the temporal > > dimension differently from the spacial > > dimensions in that we *presume* we are always > > moving forward in the temporal dimension (whereas > > we do not presume constant absolute movement in > > any of the spacial dimensions - indeed relativity > > rules out even the concept). > > Read the sentence you just wrote backwards, or randomize the words. > Which orientation says what you intended? Let's call that orientation > "forwards", shall we? What do you mean? That we wouldn't be able to understand the sentence if it were written in a different order? Actually that is true for English, but not for Greek, for example. Also with sufficient effort, it would be possible to construct and read a language that expressed meaning only with spacial proximity on the paper (with no reference made to character orientation or direction). > > Am I right that "s^2" in the above equation is > > seconds squared? > > No. It is a proper displacement, and its units are "distance > squared". Ah yes. I've seen the equation since > > If so, the statement does not refer to time, > > it refers to rate of change (in 3 dimensions, > > not 4) when the temporal dimension is given a > > constant value. And rate of change is only a > > concept required for prediction, a human > > behaviour, it is not required for describing > > the state of the universe. > > It describes the distance in units of distance between two events, no > matter how separated (space or time). If s^2 is zero, they are light- > like separated. If s^2 is positive they are time-like separated. > Either of those support cause-effect relationships. Indeed. I've looked it up and I think I've got my head around that. I notice that if an event occurs which is in the same 4D location as another event, then the two events are in fact indistinguishable, and are one-and-the-same. > > Incidentally, what do you think of this > > hypothesis: light moves only in three > > dimensions, not four, and that 4 dimensions > > are only required to describe the behaviour > > of matter? I'm sure you'll agree that it's a > > hypothesis that immediately explains why > > light always propagates at a constant speed. > > Doesn't work, since light responds to the space it travels through. > Curving paths, polarity changes, and so on. And I'll bet you that none of those phenomenon require a change in pime in order to be described. > > > > > 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. > > > > > Lol. I'm sure we can dismiss sci-fi from > > > > our consideration. > > > > The distance between thought experiments and > > > SciFi is a lot shorter than you seem to think. > > > Look at the works of Arthur C. Clarke. > > > No doubt. But Clarke was an engineer and was > > ahead of his time, whereas people who talk of > > "aging backwards" are not usually engineers > > and they are behind their time. I consider > > myself belonging to the former category. > > Quantum objects do not experience time. A radioactive nucleus does > not age. It is as likely to decay *now* as it might be 100 billion > years from now, no matter what its "half life" might be. Time and > aging are functions of "large" statistical systems. I probably agree. > You waste your > time attacking something your "tens of hours" of thought are not > preparing you for. Haha. I haven't come across anything yet that taxed me too hard. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > That does not strike me as a proof. > > > > You wanted to know something has been > > > considered, then you discount this out-of-hand? > > > I'm not discounting it out of hand as such. What > > I'm saying is there is no proof here (which > > concerns me because it means there is no > > disproof of what I'm suggesting). > > That awaits you making some qualitative predictions. What can one predict once one accepts that time stands still? What becomes possible with stationary time, that is not possible with ever- moving-forward time? > > > > If there is an experiment that has > > > > *proven* the forward movement of time, > > > > then I'm interested to know of it so I > > > > can find out more about it. > > > > Science is not about proof, but disproof. > > > We make guesses as to how Nature will behave, > > > then we find out how good our guesses were. > > > How can we disprove your idea? What features > > > would you expect to see, that differ from > > > other models of time? > > > What can I disprove? Well, what have you got? > > We have the irresolvable paradoxes of the > > existing model of time. > > No paradoxes, but those in your mind. What, you mean contrivances like parallel universes, loops in time, etc, are not paradoxes inconsistent with any experience of the world? > I am asking you what you'd > expect to see differently. I wouldn't expect to "see" anything differently in the material world. What I would expect is that certain things that we currently can't theoretically reconcile would soon become reconcilable. You probably know more about the issues than I do. > > Then what are the remaining problems in physics > > between what we can observe, and what we can't > > explain with a unified theory? Gravity, perhaps? > > Reverse time don't do it. Eh? > > Perhaps I should turn my hand to theoretical > > physics after all, because I've turned them to > > pretty much everything else. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > Our understanding of gravity has changed many > > > > times over the centuries. No one "questions > > > > gravity", any more than I am questioning > > > > time itself; what I am questioning is our > > > > understanding of it. > > > > Do you expect mass to fall up in your > > > "understanding"? > > > Mass can fall up, in the sense it can go up and > > never come down. That "what goes up must come > > down" was a fiction that went bang a long time > > ago. > > A billiard ball. Unvaporized. Not launched by a nuclear explosion. > On Earth's surface. Near sea level, but not under it. Released 6 > inches from the billiard table surface. In 1000 tries will it always > fall down? Depends whether there is any force present to oppose gravity. > > > > And in particular what I'm saying is that we > > > > put "the past" and "the future" to bed as > > > > fictions of the mind, much as we have put to > > > > bed fictions about the four humours, and > > > > heaven and hell (though this one still > > > > kicks beneath the covers). > > > > Worse than under the covers... > > > Indeed. > > > > So you want to repeal drinking age laws, patent > > > law, gestation periods, and what else? > > > Age does not measure travel in time. > > Yes, it does. Thank you for playing. Lol. No it doesn't.
From: Inertial on 22 Dec 2009 01:51
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3aee2f03-60ff-427b-8979-496576e59acd(a)h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On 22 Dec, 01:49, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> >> > > > > 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" >> > Effect n. "something caused" >> >> > By these definitions, "cause precedes effect" is >> > a tautology. And to define tautology: >> >> > Tautology n. "a compound proposition which is >> > unconditionally true" >> >> Does not address either spark or flame. > > Spark n. "A small fiery particle, ... that which ignites" > Ignite v. "heat to the point of combustion" > Flame n. "The state of visible combustion" > > The only reason "spark leads to flame" is not a tautology is because a > spark does not necessarily lead to a flame, whereas cause does > necessarily lead to effect. Not by your rather silly definition. All you've said is a cause is something that comes before an effect. Coming before is not enough to make something a "cause". And we experimentally have found the cause does not have to come before effect. |