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 22 Dec 2009 02:08 On 22 Dec, 05:28, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:51:40 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >On 20 Dec, 22:30, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > > >> As you can see, asking intelligent questions here is usually a waste of time. > > >Lol. Do you know of any better place to ask them? (Although I note the > >DSc in your title, so I presume you take the matter somewhat more > >seriously. Incidentally, please credit me with any ideas you get here > >for your next DSc!) > > >> People like David Smith respond with entirely circular logic and think they are > >> making intelligent comments, when in fact they are merely preaching their > >> nonsensical relativist religion. Other people claim that time and time flow do > >> not actually exist but are just psychological constructs. > > >> The whole subject TIME is often classified as philosophy, when in fact it is > >> very much a physical question. 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. > > >> In my opinion TIME is a basic dimension, totally unrelated to the spatial ones. > > >*Why* do you say that? > > >> We feel time 'flowing' because we possess fairly accurate biological clocks > >> that sense that flow. > > >But my hypothesis is that we don't sense time flowing at all - and > >that our everyday concept of "the passage of time" describes something > >quite different from the fourth dimension itself. > > >To illustrate, in the thought experiment where the astronaut travels > >near the speed of light and comes back 10 years younger than his twin, > >are you suggesting that the astronaut "sensed" a change in the flow of > >time? No. Indeed, isn't the point that neither the astronaut, nor any > >mechanical instrument we currently have for measuring "time", can > >sense the dilation of time? > > Hahahahhahhahahhahahha! thanks for the laughs... > You don't really believe that stuff do you? I certainly do. You know I'm getting the impression there are quite a few cranks on this newsgroup, and one of them isn't me. > Time dilation doesn't exist. > Time 'rate' and time 'instant' are absolute and universal. I'm afraid that is not consistent with observation. > >> As far as past and future are concerned consider this: do all states of the > >> universe 'always' exist and are we simply 'falling' down the absolute time > >> axis? > > >> Then ask yourself this question,"If I wasn't alive, what year would it be?" > > >I think it's a meaningless question. Life is a perceived property of > >human bodies, and has no objective definition (at least no definition > >that is not arbitrarily complex and human-centric). > > It's obviously too hard for you....as it is for most people. Indeed, I always found theology hard to swallow.
From: Ste on 22 Dec 2009 02:10 On 22 Dec, 06:51, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(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. I have yet to hear of an experiment where cause has not preceded effect.
From: Inertial on 22 Dec 2009 02:14 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:22029ec3-5d7b-449e-a4e9-e74822b98d7f(a)c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > I have yet to hear of an experiment where cause has not preceded > effect. I already told you .. delayed choice quantum eraser (double-slit). See here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
From: Inertial on 22 Dec 2009 05:49 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:mc71j5t044k9n9cf36tfhkreu3660b4aen(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:08:41 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > >>On 22 Dec, 05:28, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:51:40 -0800 (PST), Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >On 20 Dec, 22:30, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>> >>> >> As you can see, asking intelligent questions here is usually a waste >>> >> of time. >>> > >>> >To illustrate, in the thought experiment where the astronaut travels >>> >near the speed of light and comes back 10 years younger than his twin, >>> >are you suggesting that the astronaut "sensed" a change in the flow of >>> >time? No. Indeed, isn't the point that neither the astronaut, nor any >>> >mechanical instrument we currently have for measuring "time", can >>> >sense the dilation of time? >>> >>> Hahahahhahhahahhahahha! thanks for the laughs... >>> You don't really believe that stuff do you? >> >>I certainly do. You know I'm getting the impression there are quite a >>few cranks on this newsgroup, and one of them isn't me. > > You're certainly on their side. > >>> Time dilation doesn't exist. >>> Time 'rate' and time 'instant' are absolute and universal. >> >>I'm afraid that is not consistent with observation. > > hahahahahahaha! WHAT BLOODY OBSERVATION? You've been in denial of the last century of physics research and experimentation for many years now. >>> >> Then ask yourself this question,"If I wasn't alive, what year would >>> >> it be?" >>> >>> >I think it's a meaningless question. Life is a perceived property of >>> >human bodies, and has no objective definition (at least no definition >>> >that is not arbitrarily complex and human-centric). >>> >>> It's obviously too hard for you....as it is for most people. >> >>Indeed, I always found theology hard to swallow. > > Well give up the Einsteinian religion then before it gets you irreversible > hooked. Its science .. not religion.
From: dlzc on 22 Dec 2009 08:57
Dear Ste: On Dec 21, 11:35 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 22 Dec, 01:49,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Not an assumption. Based on evidence, > > > > > > the cause never follows the effect. .... > > 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. Rather than address the point, we have wandered off into a land of definitions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric) .... and we don't need to stay. .... > > > 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. No, the egg is formed from a different kind of cell a few hours before being released for its trip. SO you play games, and waste time. Goodbye. David A. Smith |