TIME EXPLAINED (v2.1)

[hardkraft]

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

 

They do experience all sorts of other radiation, forces and waves that give them information. But do tell me how would a blind person measure a distance between stars without instruments that tell her what the radiation of those stars is.

 

A better analogy would be a person suspended in a sensory deprivation chamber. Even with clues like heart beat, breathing and others the time and distance smeems to disapear.

[phoenixbyrd]

No, it is not a kind of light. Perhaps you didn't pay attention as does seem very evident in this post. Heat is a thermal energy, when something get's hot it's molecules speed up. When something get's cold, it's molecules slow down. If that's to hard I can try to explain it in better detail for ya!

 

Infared radtiation is not a type of heat, it is a type of electrmagnetic radiation. Please, go learn something ffs.

 

Heat has more to do with the movement of molecules then it does with electrmagnetic radiation, but you'd only understand that if you paid attention, something alot of hypography users chose not to do.

[phoenixbyrd]

They do experience all sorts of other radiation, forces and waves that give them information. But do tell me how would a blind person measure a distance between stars without instruments that tell her what the radiation of those stars is.

 

A better analogy would be a person suspended in a sensory deprivation chamber. Even with clues like heart beat, breathing and others the time and distance smeems to disapear.

 

Distance will still be there despite you being able to measure it. Distance doesn't go away because you can't measure it. Do you even see what your saying? More appropriately, do you even understand what your trying to discuss?

[hardkraft]

Distance will still be there despite you being able to measure it. Distance doesn't go away because you can't measure it. Do you even see what your saying? More appropriately, do you even understand what your trying to discuss?

 

In that case the reality doesn't matter. You can keep making stuff up despite whether you can detect it or not. Keep on dreaming.

[phoenixbyrd]

lmao, yea I'm making it all up. The universe will crumble without life to observe it man!

 

It's called common sense.

[CraigD]

I haven’t yet digested the entire post, but note one stated assumption that doesn’t agree with observation, nor the predictions of either Special Relativity nor classical mechanics involving a fixed luminescent ether:

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.

The rate at which any sort of clock (A mechanical clock, a decaying radioactive substance, an aging human being, etc.) “ticks” depends strongly on the locations and velocities of the clock and its observer. An clock approaching the observer appears to tick faster, one receding slower. In the example of a moving train passing a stationary observer, only at the moment that the observer measures the train’s position to be perpendicular to its velocity does the clock tick at the expected rate. The deviation from the expected rate is given by the formula for relativistic Doppler shift.

 

Accounting for these changes in observed rates is critical in resolving the various simultaneity “paradoxes” (eg: the “barn-pole paradox”) illustrating SR.

 

This Doppler formula can also be used to calculate shift in energy (frequency) of photons, but this is not relevant to the current discussion.

[CraigD]

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.

True. Moreover, such an “instruments”, in the form of the known astronomical bodies, are often used that way in astronomy. Famously, the planet Neptune was first “seen” by its effect on neighboring Uranus’s motion, leading to its eventual optical “sighting”.

 

On a larger scale, much of what is currently believed about the structure of the Milky Way and other galaxies comes not from direct observation of bodies, but from their gravitational influence on neighboring, directly observed bodies. The current belief that all galaxies have super-massive black holes in their centers is due more to indirect gravitational than optical observation.

Oh, and for the love of gawd, learn about heat. Heat is not a kind of light.

In physics, it’s common to express multiple meaning with term “heat”. Heat can be synonymous with temperature, the measurement of the average kinetic energy of the molecules of a collection of matter in a particular volume of space, or it can mean the total kinetic energy of such molecules. It’s also commonly used to refer to the electromagnetic spectrum between about 3*10^11 and 4*10^14 Hz. Though technically imprecise, many people, including professional astronomers, use the shorter “heat” in place of the more precise “infrared” to refer to this band of EM radiation.

 

As in much of conversation and technical English, it’s important to determine the intended usage of a word from its context.

According to you [arkain?], distance doesn't exist for BLIND PEOPLE!

Now, this is just being silly! Normal human eyes are no more sensitive to much of the spectrum used in both optical and radio astronomy than those of a blind person, yet with the aid of electronics photomultipliers and chemical films, we “see” them just fine. Though totally blind people requires unusual equipment (eg: tactile printouts and display screens), they are in principle as able to make astronomical observations as sighted people.

[hardkraft]

No, it is not a kind of light. Perhaps you didn't pay attention as does seem very evident in this post. Heat is a thermal energy, when something get's hot it's molecules speed up. When something get's cold, it's molecules slow down. If that's to hard I can try to explain it in better detail for ya!

 

Infared radtiation is not a type of heat, it is a type of electrmagnetic radiation. Please, go learn something ffs.

 

Heat has more to do with the movement of molecules then it does with electrmagnetic radiation, but you'd only understand that if you paid attention, something alot of hypography users chose not to do.

 

I did not say infrared radiation is a type of heat, I said it was a kind of light. Now I see that you have a problem with paying attention :D

 

And I know what heat is and that it generates infrared radiation and that's how we can detect it coming from a star for example (or if somebody is full of hot air). I know you are smarter than that but I don't know why you choose to play dumb. It doesn't advance your argument.

[hardkraft]

lmao, yea I'm making it all up. The universe will crumble without life to observe it man!

 

It's called common sense.

 

No, it's supposed to be called science. A discipline where you deal with what is observable.

 

And please reread the original posts. Nobody says that there is no distance just that there would be no distance without light (or other radaition that goes at light speed, or something else that would cary the information instead). But I can see that hypotheticals and thought experiments might be too dificult for you to fathom :D

[phoenixbyrd]

No, it really really really is called common sense. Even without light distance would still exist. Even without life or anything observing it, distance would still exist. Despite you personally being able to measure how far away two given objects are from one another, yes, distance still exists. That is called common sense, not science and not a though experiment, just simply common sense.

[hardkraft]

True. Moreover, such an “instruments”, in the form of the known astronomical bodies, are often used that way in astronomy. Famously, the planet Neptune was first “seen” by its effect on neighboring Uranus’s motion, leading to its eventual optical “sighting”.

 

Indirect or not radiation seems to be in the end necessary for observation.

[hardkraft]

No, it really really really is called common sense. Even without light distance would still exist. Even without life or anything observing it, distance would still exist. Despite you personally being able to measure how far away two given objects are from one another, yes, distance still exists. That is called common sense, not science and not a though experiment, just simply common sense.

 

How would you prove it did?

[phoenixbyrd]

This is like arguing with a religious person. Despite all common sense, you still want to believe that distance can't exist without light. Fine, you go ahead and throw common sense out the window if you'd like.

 

We have two rocks seperated by one foot. This is with you visually measuring mind you. Let's take away the source of light, but still leave you and a ruler to do the measuring. You have a ruler that you know is one foot in length, with this you can measure the distance between the two rocks. Now let's take away your ruler and yourself as the observer of those two rocks.

 

Now we have no light source, no ruler, and no you. We know however know that both rocks are one foot away from each other. Without any means of measuring those two rocks, does the distance change? Simple common sense answer is NO because those rocks don't give a rats arse if anything is there to measure their distance from one another.

[hardkraft]

This is like arguing with a religious person. Despite all common sense, you still want to believe that distance can't exist without light. Fine, you go ahead and throw common sense out the window if you'd like.

 

We have two rocks seperated by one foot. This is with you visually measuring mind you. Let's take away the source of light, but still leave you and a ruler to do the measuring. You have a ruler that you know is one foot in length, with this you can measure the distance between the two rocks. Now let's take away your ruler and yourself as the observer of those two rocks.

 

Now we have no light source, no ruler, and no you. We know however know that both rocks are one foot away from each other. Without any means of measuring those two rocks, does the distance change? Simple common sense answer is NO because those rocks don't give a rats arse if anything is there to measure their distance from one another.

So you establish the existence of distance with light first, seems like the only way to go. Then you remove it and assume that everything is as before.

How would you know where the two rocks are and your ruler is a foot long? I know, you'll say you'd touch them. Again, that's an electromagnetic interaction.

 

To me it looks like people arguing that there are infinite undetectable universes. Sure, there could be, or there could be just one. What difference does it make to science if we can't detect them? Maybe one day we find a way to detect them but until then they have no bearing on reality.

[phoenixbyrd]

My god you just don't want to grasp simple concepts do you? Fight the establishment! Right?

 

I wouldn't know personally how far apart the two rocks were, but the fact of the matter is, even without my direct measurment of their distance from one another, they still retain distance from one another. Again, simple common sense. It's really not that damn confusing, nor is it in any way related to the magical infinite undetectable universes. It's in fact extremely far removed from such a concept. Then again, you've shown time and time again that you absolutly hate common sense or anything resembling it. I'm out of this discussion thanks to you, because people like you can't understand COMMON SENSE.

 

That and I don't want to get banned, cuz I'm about ready to same some pretty nasty things to you. Stupidity is not something I respect when a person has the choice to actively take a part in his/her own education. I may not have all the answers to everything, but damn man ... you just kill simple common sense like it's your enemy.

[hardkraft]

Sorry to get you so roused up. Unfortunately science is not about common sense. If Einstain used common sense he wouldn't get too far. Stick around.:)

[arkain101]

My god you just don't want to grasp simple concepts do you? Fight the establishment! Right?

 

I agree that in your mind, it makes perfect sense that distance exists with or without any way of detecting it.

 

However, the #1 law of observation is that you observe inside your own frame, and the interaction exists within the frame itself.

 

So in all technicallity you can not prove that space exists, unles you can observe that space exists, and even so you are only predicting that measurement inside your own frame, and note: all frames can be accuratley considered no more than points on a graph.

 

Mentally it makes perfect comman sense there is always space. Logically the universe is interaction, and interactions occur in one place only, your frame.