TIME EXPLAINED (v2.1)

[arkain101]

Exploring measurable events in the universe.

 

Lets begin with an opening statement of which to reflect upon throughout this understanding.

 

Events/Measurements come from compounding individual elements.

 

Advanced Statement.

Law of the Limitation of Empirical Measurements:
Any measurement involves two or more fundamental elements.
No measurement will ever result in a singular fundamental element.
No measurement can measure a true fundamental.

Therefore we can conclude from this that there does not exist a truely fundamental empirical measurement.

 

Novice Statement.

Nothing can happen, (not even time), without the minimum of two fundamental elements.
Thus, any single fundamental element can contain no measureable certainty, no specific event,  no reasoning.

 

 

Lets look at a list of things we call measurements.

 

Tempeature.

 

Pressure.

 

Sound.

 

Time.

 

Motion, Distance, Time, Velocity.

 

ElectroMagnetic Radiation.

 

 

All of these things are formations of things that exist because we observe them. By observing them we give them meaning, when infact they all originate from this.

 

 

 

This is the universe, or more specifically, a universe of a singular fundamental element.

 

There is no meaning. No possible measurements. It is the universe at its source for that which is the fundamental things that make it.

 

Thus this is the universe of a photon.

 

A photon is a packet of energy we generally call light.

 

A photon is its own universe.

 

When we measure light, it is appears to be capable to travel at any velocity, be at as many places and times as it wants. A photon is not restricted to time. It acts like a wave, and also like an object when someone tries to observe it.

 

Because of this, obviously you see, in no matter how you try to measure or imagine the photon you are left with the impossibility to do it!

 

It is as good as an illusion.

 

So in accordance we conclude the very source of reality is invisible, and completely non-existent relative to what science considers real / existent.

 

The universe is infact, as I like to call; a meaningless place, with the potential of meaning. As we become a mind in a childs body with awareness, the universe, for you, takes on meanings. Even if you cant describe or measure them yet, events come into awareness, from a previously non existence.

 

The universe is truly an illusion, the very model that describes it, is invisible.

 

Thus if you figure it strings, or particles, or waves, or aether, or quantum charge, or whatever you want to call it, it is impossible for you to measure it and see what it looks like.

 

It is like taking two seperate universes. Our universe and a universe we have no idea that exists.

 

You can't describe the other universe, because you are dealing with two individual singualr fundamental elements; two completely seperate universes non-existent relative to eachother. The same thing our universe exibits it is made from.

 

What happens when light passes through itself relative to an observer? The amplitude in the frequency increases.

 

 

Time:

 

When you observe something change via light signals that represents the distant location the change is occuring you are viewing the concept of forward moving time.

 

At the same moment you view this 'coming at you' change, light is also leaving your frame, and if you were to be able to observe this light you would observe your past, the same way we observe the past when we look out into space at the multitude of stars.

 

So observed change via light, flows in two directions. One that froms future, a change you can observe, and the other that forms a past, an observation you changed.

 

The present is the location of mass. This is where the forward and reverse time flows collide to create events.

 

This is to say, an event or a change is where things that can interact contact eachother.

 

In this concept space is validated by light as it displayes an estimatation of the location of matter, and time is generated by light as the flow of a specific amount of information for every given distance (d). So in effect, Distance is future, and future is distance. So light can be understood as the compound measurement that creates space and time. Logically we can unite these two things space and time as space-time, becaus they are both measurements generated by the same compound action.

 

So by this we can assume that space, and this aspect of time, are not actual physical things, but perceptable measurements, like tempeature (as an example).

 

This tends to show a problem with special relativity if one considers this a fact. That space and time are illusions, or, in a better description; compound created measurements. Thus what happens to these measurements, afflicts only the measurement and not the surrounding idea of the universe.

 

One candidate to fill in to solve for the proposed problem is position alteration. That is that any object that is moving, is never in the positiont that you observe it to be.

 

For example; One day scientists discover an object rapidly moving towards our solar system. We calculate that this object is moving in uniform motion, ' an inertial frame'. Although this object was at one time under acceleration in order to obtain vecocity in our direction. Therefore, the light we observe when we detect it, is representing a position that is distant in the past and therefore there for in space. This fills in for the idea that 'clocks are equally in sync for non accerlated frames' and out of sync for accelerated frames during the acceleration, If the clock is adjusted, the position is also adjusted, which obviously is just to state, the object has changed predicted position in space-time (ie: gotten further away or closer than velocity predicted [acceleratoin]). However, this event of change, creates the same abbiration of light for each frame involved in the observation. Except it is not simuntanious. The frame that undergoes acceleration observes the dilations and abbirations, the instant it acceleartes, and all observers, observe the change relative to the time it took for the light signal to reach them.

 

This is to suggest that during the well known twin paradox thought experiment, the dilations are symetric between the two observers but not simultaneous. It also suggest that dilation are dependent on direction of acceleration. That is a frame that accelerates away from an observer, the observed light information slows in rate of change, and a frame that accelerates towards an observer, the observed light information accelerates.

 

This is stated becaue you have to consider the distance between frames as an amount of time intervals. As in seconds per distance. If you Accelerate a frame you shrink the distance the amount of seconds is contained with in, and when the observer recieves that light, they measure a time rate, and a position adjustment.

 

This points out that frame that uniformly acclerates away from earth, to a distant place, then deccellerates, and turns to accelerated and then eventually stop and return, the effects of any dilations are cancled out and they return to the same moment of interactibility in linear time zone.

[phoenixbyrd]

PopularThe interval between events is measured in terms of other events. And the interval between those events is measured in terms of other events. Until there are no events left, only intervals. And intervals are frozen timeless moments. For time is a measure of events, of change, measured by and against some other change. And for things to change, something, somewhere, somehow, has to have motion. You don’t need time to have motion. You need motion to have time.

 

THANK YOU!

 

I can't even tell you how many time's I've tried explaining this to people. I can't even understand why some can't even grasp this simple obvious concept and still live in the land of make believe time travelers. Next time I have this type of conversation with someone, I'm sending them to this thread. You've done a hell of a better job then I've ever been able to accomplish! GREAT WORK!

[ughaibu]

Popular: I guess you've encountered McTaggart's "paradox", but for general interest: The Unreality of Time

Here are some criticisms: Marko Ursic, McTaggarts "paradox of time"

Some attempts to deal with the implications: Time and Supervenience

Some other online papers on the philosophy of time: People with online papers in philosophy

[Farsight]

Phoenixbyrd: Thanks. Much appreciated. :warped:

 

Ughaibu: McTaggart's Paradox doesn't ring a bell. I'll check those links out.

 

Arkain: That's a long one. I'll get back to you later. Maybe it deserves a new thread?

[The_Right_Stuff]

If you think of space as open space, then why not do the same for Time.

 

In other words, Space-Time is a fixed environment that we move through.

In fact, even if you are at rest in Space, you are still in motion across Time. If you were at rest in Time, then you would still be in motion, but now across Space.

 

This implies that all objects are constantly in motion across Space-Time, but that the direction of travel in that Space-Time, can be changed.

 

A geometric analysis of this theory, leads to the production of equations that are identical to the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Equation, the Time Dilation Equation, the Lorentz Transformation Equations, and the Velocity Addition Equation.

 

So it can't be that bad a theory !

 

The dimension of Time is at a standstill, but we move through it, just as we can move through Space !

[Farsight]

It is. It's wrong. The plain fact is that we just don't move through time. We move through space. And if you think you can move through time, try taking a little hop to yesterday. No can do.

 

Yes, you can think in terms of geometry and you can do calculations with the Minkowski mathematics. But don't let that seduce you into thinking that things are moving when they patently are not. Learn to see what's there. Be ontological. And read the essay at the start of this thread!

[arkain101]

It seems reasonable for me to claim the universe dies and is born some million times a second (rough rough estimate). It is always changing states, structure and value. However, in a constant fashion.

 

In this sense, There is such a thing as time to measure those changes, that is very linear relative only for our minds(Time: type mind), but it is absolutly not linear in dimension relative to the universe(Time: type linear universal). For it is only moments of infinity that come and go in and out of space and time.

 

Secondly, the other (2nd) aspect of time and also space is that (light) energy is the action that creates the measurement of space and time, and therefore literaly is the creator and deliverer of such a concept.

 

Assume the universe without visual or detectable light. At what rate do you measure things changing around you? None. And how far away are other objects, or is there such as far away..?

 

So in that sense, light as it were, allows one to predict a good estimation, of how far things are away with respect to the speed of light, and how much change of states and time is expected to exist between that specific distance. This is also not linear time, this is time and space created from observing EMR frequencies, existing throughout space. A measurement, and not a fabric.

 

In this sense any direction of this light is the direction that observable states of change are moving. Which is to say, in all directions, at all times, which generates an end result of null time, linearly.

 

However, the last and third aspect of time, is the time of comparison, that is with a memory actived mind, we see "old", states of change still with us, such as dinasour bones. These are states of change driven by entropy and what have you. The same moment (blip of now) of when those bones were in a walking dinosaur is with us when we see them in the ground, however, they have changed a very high number of times, so much so they are no longer dinosaur bones, they are fossil rocks.

 

Conlusively, and I know we are beating this topic to death, time exists one place, a mind that can measure it, and states of existence come and go, but interestingly enough, our mind continues on, it jumps the leaps of death of a state, and observes the birth of another, and lasts to capture them, in a place signficantly different to the universe itself. A mind.

[phoenixbyrd]

arkain101,

 

You make me want to smash my head into a wall of nails.

 

Assume the universe without visual or detectable light. At what rate do you measure things changing around you? None. And how far away are other objects, or is there such as far away..?

 

Ok, let's play with this abit. Assuming we have a universe full of stars that give off no light, amazingly there is still distance. While we couldn't even exist in such a universe, objects still exist at differing distances from one another and to imagine, all that is possible even without light. While being able to visually measure something does help a great deal, lack of being able to do so doesn't change anything. I suggest you re-read what popular has said about time. Not only is it correct, but beating it into your head will do you some good. Your over killing the whole concept of time. WHY!?

[ughaibu]

Most of the universe appears to be nothing. This wording is unfortunate as nothing is not a thing and can not "be", it's a lack of any thing and any state of being, etc. As there's nothing between any pair of suitably oriented things, those things aren't separated. So, your account of distance strikes me as simplistic.

[arkain101]

You make me want to smash my head into a wall of nails.

 

That sounds like a personal problem.. :)

[hardkraft]

arkain101,

 

You make me want to smash my head into a wall of nails.

 

 

 

Ok, let's play with this abit. Assuming we have a universe full of stars that give off no light, amazingly there is still distance. While we couldn't even exist in such a universe, objects still exist at differing distances from one another and to imagine, all that is possible even without light. While being able to visually measure something does help a great deal, lack of being able to do so doesn't change anything. I suggest you re-read what popular has said about time. Not only is it correct, but beating it into your head will do you some good. Your over killing the whole concept of time. WHY!?

 

I don't think you are getting what arkain was trying to express. In the universe with invisible stars, how would you knw they existed? Heat? Well it's a kind of light. How would you measure those distances if you couldn't even detect the objects you are measuring. In that sence light is a carier of information. No light, no information, nothing to measure. Otherwise I can be measuring distances beween gremlins.

 

However, Arkain, I can conjure an example with plenty of light and yet no distance or time (or very little of it). Imagine swimming in a school of fish where all the fish look exactly the same and are equally spaced. You can measure the distance between them which would be let's say 5 inches and that's pretty much it. You could see the light coming from light years away but it would look exactly as the thing you see in front of your face. You could count the fish that pass you but you wouldn't be sure if it's the same ones that you are counting over and over again.

 

So it seems it's not any particular objects that create space/time but the differences that we can detect. Light is a part of those differences.

[arkain101]

I agree. with everything up to the fish example. I didnt quite follow, which way what was going :(

 

To elaborate, If light has no medium of any type whatsoever, than one would conclude it is the creator of the measurement or so called "fabric" of space-time itself. A phantom fabric, a measurement concept.

 

If this be the case, space and time is no more than a temporary, and relative measurement that can only be formed by EMR.

 

However, it has been said and sounds logical that space and time without a form of aether is unthinkable. (quote einstien).

 

If this be the case, there is some form of fabric aether...in my opinoin. Also, then gravity and time are to some extent perportional to eachother. Where time slows, you find so called called gravity force.

 

I mean, there are other explainations, but often they wander into theory land where things just get out of hand in my opinion.

[hardkraft]

I agree. with everything up to the fish example. I didnt quite follow, which way what was going :(

 

That's the point. In that example direction loses its meaning, so does distance and time. There is plenty of information but it's all the same in every direction all the time. I guess those were the conditions at the beggining of big bang.

[arkain101]

If you have the time to read this is more clearly represents my argument of the correct form of relativity understanding.

 

 

Understanding Relativity

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Here is one of the easiest ways to understand relativity of simultaneity. Imagine a train box car with a light emitter in the center of it. In the cars frame of reference, if the light flashes, the beams will reach both ends at the same time. Now imagine that you are on the ground as the train passes to your right near the speed of light. After the light flashes, and as the light is traveling toward the ends of the train, the train will move to the right from the origin of the light. The result is that the rear of the train is moving toward the light source, while the front of the train is moving away. Since light propagates in both directions at the same rate, it will reach the rear of the train first.

 

The question, then, is - are the events simultaneus? Well, in the trains frame of reference, they are. In your frame of reference, they aren't. Clocks are the same way. Two clocks at the ends of the train (which are syncronized) will always read the same time in the trains frame of reference. However, in your frame the clock at the back will always be somewhat ahead of the clock in the front. The reason the train appears shorter in your frame is that, for what is for you simultaneous observations of the front and back of the train, you will see the back of the train further in the future than the front.

 

Quote:

Now imagine that you are on the ground as the train passes to your right near the speed of light. After the light flashes, and as the light is traveling toward the ends of the train, the train will move to the right from the origin of the light.

 

At the exact moment of perpendicular observation, The actual material of the train will be a given distance (d) futher along its path that one plainly observes, and that is considerably close to the same distance the light has to travel from the train, to the observer. Note: When the train is very near the speed of light.

 

This is to say:

call [X] the observer making an observation (at rest)

call this the train observer see's: [To]

call this the train where the material is: [Tm]

and these lines ----- will represent light paths.

[To]---------[Tm]

|

|

|

|

[X]

 

So as we try to concieve that we can observe the light traveling through the train we are restricted by all means to do such a thing.

 

Secondly, we have to consider the fact that any accelerating object we observe (that is the light that reaches the observers frame) will have its position altered, and time altered.

 

Thirdly, when we have a frame that is inertial, and this means is unchanging in velocity, it is not experiencing any kind of acceleration force, the clocks that are in both frames will observe to tick in sync regardless of which frame one chooses to observe from.

 

This because of a very simple explaination. Consider the sun, and exclude all vaiables of orbit. We are using Stationary moments

 

We have 100% accuracy in predicting is position right now, because it is interial, there are no accelerations.

 

However, if the sun accelerates, and that is to say it moves or changes velocity (assuming it could), it will take us 8mins to realise this has happened.

 

Assuming we knew the sun moved before we could physically observe it on earth, we say, during those 8mins a law of physics restricted observer (one who does not know the suns motion before it happens) will have No possibility of predicting its position accurately.

 

Now back to our super fast train. At a constant acceleration rate.

 

As the train accelerates towards the speed of light it will continue and continue to move futher and futher beyond the position we observe it to be. It is not inertial. It is accelerating. We will have very poor ability to use the light we see for the tool to measure its position. We will need to calculate the ever changing error of position, to predict where it is.

 

Then let us say by using only the light we observe to claim where the train is located, we observe it reaches its final and maximum velocity of 99% the speed of light, and we plainly see it is about 1 light day away from our position of observation, when it reaches its final velocity.

 

However at this point just before the train is observed to reach its inertial velocity the train is infact much further along its path than the light displays it to be. It is at a place of which we can not physically see it.

 

Now that the train is inertial and moving nearly the speed of light the light coming from the train as it comes directly at us is very close to the train itself, and there is such a great distance between each 'pulse' or wave front that the object infact becomes a very long streak, or more accurately a longer observable streak. Although, we can use in a thought experiment (to make it visible) that when we observe it reach its maximum velocity, we can calculate its actual position and get a clear image in our minds where it is.

 

At this point it will be 1light day - 99% the speed of light light day of distance away from us.

 

Considering the train passes us at a distance of about 10 light minutes away, the train will pass us a little less than 10mins (since its going 99% light)before we actually visualise it to do so.

 

But while it does pass us at an inertial rate, the time is the same for each observer in each frame and it is only during he acclerations is there an observed 'time' dilation.

 

So there will be no length contraction of the actual object, there will be instead, a huge change of literal position, and a long streak of uncertainty of where the actual object is, depending on how accurate of an instrument you use to detect it. Although by calculating it and using a though experiment, you can invision a source point of where it looks to be and a real point of where it is but you can not physically detect it in reality.

 

Why is this true?

 

Consider an object as far away as the moon suddenly raced towards us instantly at 99% the speed of light. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to detect it by any means before it hit you.

 

However in a thought experiment you can physically slow it down in your mind and see that the old position and the new positions are sepearted by almost no distance.

 

As for the observer on such a fast object, that much of a rapid acceleration would physically stop all the atoms (which are more accuraly, uncertain quantum fluctuations) from moving and the rate at which anything ages would almost be null, of couse exlcluding the fact it would turn into molten plasma from the harsh accleration. But in our mind, since we make it so it does not melt we just have to accept that the "atoms" ineractions slowed down and aged slower.

 

Gravity is a collection of atomic material that opperate slower relative to say: a less dense and massive volume of atomic material. The same as acceleration causes time dialtion. Gravity IS entwined with time dilation.

 

Consequently though, the flow of time is always the same in all frames of reference. Suggestive that each unit of matter mass/energy is its own unit of space time, and only when light travels via particle/wave duality from one frame to another, is there any kind of observable difference in "time" in the light (like an observed clock), however, if you flew to one or the other of the two locaitons a second would be a still measure out as a second relative to that observer (clunky mechinical clocks would remain in more or less sync, however atomic clocks could change) The only consideration for a space-time is because light reports differences, depening on source it came from.

 

In this way You can consider light as a traveling wave through space, where space remains constant, that is, positions of objects stay as they are or are going, like an inverse singularity, and the time is meerly an observation in the light changing frames, or atomic velocity differences.

 

All frames are their own universe in other words.

[phoenixbyrd]

hardkraft: I don't think you are getting what arkain was trying to express. In the universe with invisible stars, how would you knw they existed? Heat? Well it's a kind of light. How would you measure those distances if you couldn't even detect the objects you are measuring. In that sence light is a carier of information. No light, no information, nothing to measure. Otherwise I can be measuring distances beween gremlins.

 

Let's say you have instruments that can detect gravity, or radio waves, or xrays, or any other form of radiation besides light. Distance can still be measured. Unless your going to propose that we do away with all those thing's as well, in which case such a universe as far as we know couldn't even physically exist. Oh, and for the love of gawd, learn about heat. Heat is not a kind of light.

[phoenixbyrd]

Sweet jeebus, I can't even imagine how I didn't think of this before ...

 

According to you, distance doesn't exist for BLIND PEOPLE! They can't detect light and as we know from you, without light you can't measure distance. OMFG, those poor blind people. :D

[hardkraft]

Let's say you have instruments that can detect gravity, or radio waves, or xrays, or any other form of radiation besides light. Distance can still be measured. Unless your going to propose that we do away with all those thing's as well, in which case such a universe as far as we know couldn't even physically exist. Oh, and for the love of gawd, learn about heat. Heat is not a kind of light.

 

Everything that you listed with exeption of gravity IS a kind of light. It's not visible but it is the same type of wave. So far we don't have instruments that detect gravity waves so let's leave it until it's proven that they exist.

The argument was not to negate the existence of radiation/light but to show that it is responsible for space and time. Since you say that a universe would not be possible without such radiation you seem to agree with arkain that we are doomed to live in space and time.

And heat as in infrared radiation traveling through empty space is a kind of light. You should have learned it in high school or you didn't get to that part yet :D