Light Speed, Are We Talking Relativity?

[Mattzy]

Well, it's a line of argument I suppose but, to take one example, assuming you think wave phenomena are real, how could they exist without time?

exchemist, I wanted to ask you about this when you posted it but started thinking (getting confused) about something else. I was just grappling with the present being unmeasurable. I know you see the argument. I was saying that everything exists as matter or energy and that is all. A wave can exist in the present as far as I can perceive, just like anything else. It has a human history only if we choose to record it.

I accept the block view of spacetime (but I think at the moment I would prefer to call it simply space - without time).I accept now that clocks slow down due to relative motion, I accept that everything slows due to relative motion, but perhaps time can still be nothing more than a human fallacy. I see that fast and slow are real effects that can be compared - with a standard clock beat. But time is still suspiciously human for me - unless you can enlighten me? I sense that you have an argument about waves that is more profound?

[exchemist]

exchemist, I wanted to ask you about this when you posted it but started thinking (getting confused) about something else. I was just grappling with the present being unmeasurable. I know you see the argument. I was saying that everything exists as matter or energy and that is all. A wave can exist in the present as far as I can perceive, just like anything else. It has a human history only if we choose to record it.

I accept the block view of spacetime (but I think at the moment I would prefer to call it simply space - without time).I accept now that clocks slow down due to relative motion, I accept that everything slows due to relative motion, but perhaps time can still be nothing more than a human fallacy. I see that fast and slow are real effects that can be compared - with a standard clock beat. But time is still suspiciously human for me - unless you can enlighten me? I sense that you have an argument about waves that is more profound?

A wave is something that moves periodically in time. 

 

But maybe it is more general. How can you have movement, or indeed change, without time. A planet is at one side of its orbit at one point and on the other, later.  That is objectively the case, surely? 

[sluggo]

So we have proof (which I accept) that clocks slow down and it stands to reason that everything will slow down in proportion to relative speed (between the object in motion and the measurer - I prefer this to observer as it eliminates the human and perspective). Would it be very difficult to simply calculate this rate of slowing to a practical standard ratio? I read that GPS positioning systems routinely factor in these adjustments - so I guess there probably is. 

There is of course in each case of these experiments (like the H-K and better versions since) the presence of significant gravity. That makes me wonder if the earths local centre of gravity could be a reference point in spacetime around which relativity is being witnessed?

The effects are not linear (red) but exponential, insignificant at common speeds and significant at near light speed.

The H-K experiment used the earth center as the origin.

[Dubbelosix]

A wave is something that moves periodically in time. 

 

But maybe it is more general. How can you have movement, or indeed change, without time. A planet is at one side of its orbit at one point and on the other, later.  That is objectively the case, surely? 

 

Go further than that, its mass that gives ''time to systems,'' even if a wave is periodic, a photon itself has no inertial frame of reference. A universe with just radiation in it, has no time that passes.

[Mattzy]

A wave is something that moves periodically in time. 

 

But maybe it is more general. How can you have movement, or indeed change, without time. A planet is at one side of its orbit at one point and on the other, later.  That is objectively the case, surely? 

I don't think so (at the moment -ha ha). You say "periodically in time" and "on the other later".  So you are thinking with a belief in time. This is what I think is the human condition. The wave and the planet simply exist. The concept of time is only in the mind - I postulate - (until convinced otherwise).

The more I think about time, the less I think it exists. As I said, we have proof that clocks slow in comparison to others according to relative speed - so what is meant by "slowing of the clock"? The interval between each beat has increased (relatively). The human perceives this as time slowing down. This is the human perception of what lies between any events that you care to think of - like the orbit of a planet or any snapshots of something changing state or position - a wave. Any change at all. Measuring intervals to provide numerical values for comparison is human operational time.

There is no dump of spent time. Nor is there a warehouse of unused time. If you imagine the past and the future you are imagining time. What is the duration of the present that lies between past and future? Nil. Imagination is the only way that time can be created. This makes time a fallacy - in my current thinking. So if we conceive that time does not exist we are left with the question:

What is slowing of the clock? Will you say time is slowing?

An observer traveling with the clock measures no slowing except when he arrives to compare those others at rest (perception need not be discussee here) This proves SR's effect of relative speed for me, and I now understand length contraction, but I can't resolve the conflict with my disbelief in time. I am simply more at ease with not knowing (or understanding) than the concept of time existing.

Newton said that time is humanly impossible to conceive. Einstein said that "before" and "after" can't be analysed further (for me they are too hard to believe in).

[sluggo]

Mattzy;

There is no dump of spent time. Nor is there a warehouse of unused time

 

I would bronze that statement, and put it in a book of famous quotes!

[exchemist]

I don't think so (at the moment -ha ha). You say "periodically in time" and "on the other later".  So you are thinking with a belief in time. This is what I think is the human condition. The wave and the planet simply exist. The concept of time is only in the mind - I postulate - (until convinced otherwise).

The more I think about time, the less I think it exists. As I said, we have proof that clocks slow in comparison to others according to relative speed - so what is meant by "slowing of the clock"? The interval between each beat has increased (relatively). The human perceives this as time slowing down. This is the human perception of what lies between any events that you care to think of - like the orbit of a planet or any snapshots of something changing state or position - a wave. Any change at all. Measuring intervals to provide numerical values for comparison is human operational time.

There is no dump of spent time. Nor is there a warehouse of unused time. If you imagine the past and the future you are imagining time. What is the duration of the present that lies between past and future? Nil. Imagination is the only way that time can be created. This makes time a fallacy - in my current thinking. So if we conceive that time does not exist we are left with the question:

What is slowing of the clock? Will you say time is slowing?

An observer traveling with the clock measures no slowing except when he arrives to compare those others at rest (perception need not be discussee here) This proves SR's effect of relative speed for me, and I now understand length contraction, but I can't resolve the conflict with my disbelief in time. I am simply more at ease with not knowing (or understanding) than the concept of time existing.

Newton said that time is humanly impossible to conceive. Einstein said that "before" and "after" can't be analysed further (for me they are too hard to believe in).

Is distance also in the mind, then? 

[Mattzy]

A philosopher might argue that we can't be sure of anything. Perhaps our senses are interpreting what we agree on and that agreement is our reality. Distance seems to be something that we can (all?) agree on. I haven't heard any discussion on it except for length contraction -and that can only shorten an undisputed distance. But I do like such fundamental questions.

We see in humanity a strong desire for a sense of the past, in folklore, culture, tradition etc and some liking for future fantasy. I think this is the source of time.

What lies between the beats of a clock? That is the question.

[Mattzy]

Mattzy;

I would bronze that statement, and put it in a book of famous quotes!

Sluggo, it emanates from your "a timeline is a history of positions" - which I have already set in stone. The keyword being 'history'.

[Mattzy]

A philosopher might argue that we can't be sure of anything. Perhaps our senses are interpreting what we agree on and that agreement is our reality. Distance seems to be something that we can (all?) agree on. I haven't heard any discussion on it except for length contraction -and that can only shorten an undisputed distance. But I do like such fundamental questions.

We see in humanity a strong desire for a sense of the past, in folklore, culture, tradition etc and some liking for future fantasy. I think this is the source of time.

What lies between the beats of a clock? That is the question.

I should amend this weak argument about agreement - as most of the worlds' population would agree that time exists just as they would for distance.

If we were challenged to convince the masses in a debate, that distance and time do not exist, we would be able to make a much more persuasive argument for the debunking of time than distance. Distance can be held in our hands with a tape measure or notched on a rod. We can see it's existence. But time? A good prosecutor could persuade a jury, me thinks. That puts time in the mind and distance between our hands. The prosecution now rests it's case.

[exchemist]

I should amend this weak argument about agreement - as most of the worlds' population would agree that time exists just as they would for distance.

If we were challenged to convince the masses in a debate, that distance and time do not exist, we would be able to make a much more persuasive argument for the debunking of time than distance. Distance can be held in our hands with a tape measure or notched on a rod. We can see it's existence. But time? A good prosecutor could persuade a jury, me thinks. That puts time in the mind and distance between our hands. The prosecution now rests it's case.

I don't agree. It seems to me that change is an undeniable aspect of the physical world.  Without change, you cannot have motion, for instance.

 

Time is merely our measuring rod for change, just as length is our measuring rod for distance.

[Mattzy]

I don't agree. It seems to me that change is an undeniable aspect of the physical world.  Without change, you cannot have motion, for instance.

 

Time is merely our measuring rod for change, just as length is our measuring rod for distance.

The rod is palpable. You can hand it to the jury. Time is a human mental concept.  Yes, I agree that change is undeniable, but change is just another word for an event. I am suggesting that there is only change - nothing before or after. 

I also agree that humans use clocks to give us useful comparative values (operational time), but this is still a concept that is not palpable. 

An asteroid has a dimension, it has existence, it can change - but its history and future is only in the human mind.

I ask you exchemist: What is the duration between the future and the past? If you were on the jury, what would you say?

[Dubbelosix]

Time is a human mental concept.

 

It is not just a mental concept - there is far more to it than that. We have internal clocks inside the nucleus of the suprachiarasmatic gene. This internal clock works very similar to the watch on the wriste. So it is more than just a mental concept, it is something biology has adapted to use.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

A philosopher might argue that we can't be sure of anything. Perhaps our senses are interpreting what we agree on and that agreement is our reality. Distance seems to be something that we can (all?) agree on. I haven't heard any discussion on it except for length contraction -and that can only shorten an undisputed distance. But I do like such fundamental questions.

We see in humanity a strong desire for a sense of the past, in folklore, culture, tradition etc and some liking for future fantasy. I think this is the source of time.

What lies between the beats of a clock? That is the question.

 

Philosophers might argue we cannot be sure of something, but science doesn't contradict this, science says we can be quite certain of something with a close magnitude but never at 100% accuracy.

 

Secondly, this ''strong desire'' isn't a personal choice, it has genetic and biological heritage. Time does exist as a true measuring rod and in relativity, especially in general relativity, while time is ill-defined, it certainly is unthinkable without it.

[ralfcis]

While you guys struggle with your religious views discounting math as but a misleading tool, I came across this

 

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativity-using-bondi-k-calculus/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost

 

this morning. I only read the first few sentences and can already recognize my math has already been discovered. Of course none of you have the math literacy to recognize this but since you only believe anything a high priest tells you to, maybe you can now begin to understand my writings and maybe come up with some intelligent counter arguments.

[exchemist]

The rod is palpable. You can hand it to the jury. Time is a human mental concept.  Yes, I agree that change is undeniable, but change is just another word for an event. I am suggesting that there is only change - nothing before or after. 

I also agree that humans use clocks to give us useful comparative values (operational time), but this is still a concept that is not palpable. 

An asteroid has a dimension, it has existence, it can change - but its history and future is only in the human mind.

I ask you exchemist: What is the duration between the future and the past? If you were on the jury, what would you say?

The last question is the same as asking what is the value of the interval between the +ve and -ve numbers, the answer to which is obviously zero, since the present has zero duration. But I don't see what you are deducing from that.

 

I don't think you are right that change is another word for an event. Things can change with no events occurring. If you watch a car moving past you, what event, or events, can you point to? It is a continuous process, surely? How can you make sense of motion at all without time?    

[Dubbelosix]

The last question is the same as asking what is the value of the interval between the +ve and -ve numbers, the answer to which is obviously zero, since the present has zero duration. But I don't see what you are deducing from that.

 

 

 

The present must happen in discrete processes as well, so while what we call the present, varies greatly from say, the present moment it takes a photon to travel past the boundary of an electron. So even the present is a relative concept to an observer - but what he is on about isn't clear to me at all.