TIME EXPLAINED (v2.1)

[CraigD]

This discussion seems to have reached the famous and ancient philosophical discussion of Phenomenalism vs. Realism. I would say that it has wandered far from the realm of Physics and Math into the realm of Philosophy, except that, as discussions of science often do, it’s had at least one foot on the philosophical side since post #1.

 

Though there’s no harm in letting it wander where it will, it might be helpful to start a new thread in Philosophy of Science, or even parse and refile the current thread. In its nearly 200 posts to date, this thread has been all over the place! Any suggestions would be welcome. :)

[arkain101]

inneresting...

 

I agree, the thread started in the wrong place to begin with.

[Ernie]

Hi popular,

 

thank you very much for sharing you interesting thoughts about the nature of time!

 

I refer to this passage of you original post

Accelerate to half the speed of light and a second is still nine billion motions of a caesium atom. But there's only half the local motion there used to be, because the other half is already doing the travelling motion through space. Imagine yourself as a metronome. Each tick is a thought in your head, a beat in your heart, a second of your time. If you’re motionless with respect to me I see you ticking like this |||. If you jet off in a spaceship, you tick like this ///. If you could reach c and we know you can’t, you wouldn’t tick at all. Your time would flatline like this ______ because any transverse motion would cause c to be exceeded. And you wouldn’t tick for anybody else in the universe.

 

Could you please try again/with other words to explain why - from your point of view - time slows down when travelling on high speed.

 

When you have a certain interval (some sort of metronome), why does it tick slower when you are moving with a speed near c?

 

Thanks

--Ernie

[phoenixbyrd]

Ark,

 

There is no such thing as a law of observation. Where in the hell would you even get such a concept? Sure as hell wasn't school or any physics related material.

 

So in all technicallity you can not prove that space exists, unles you can observe that space exists,

 

Really now? So there was no such thing as space before life evolved on this planet? C'mon seriously... use that noggin man.

[ughaibu]

The ultimate arbitor, in any theory of truth, is confirmation of theoretics by observation. "Observation" exists at a level less divorced from reality than do any, so called, laws.

[hardkraft]

Ark,

 

There is no such thing as a law of observation. Where in the hell would you even get such a concept? Sure as hell wasn't school or any physics related material.

 

 

 

Really now? So there was no such thing as space before life evolved on this planet? C'mon seriously... use that noggin man.

 

All of our knowledge of the world starts with an observation, then because we have higher intelligence we can extrapolate those observations and derive laws from them and assume that they are universal. So the laws that we extract from observations made now we assume that they work the same in the galaxy far, far away and long, long time ago. It seems like a reasonable and common sense assumption exept we've been burnd by it many times. We know now that the laws of phisics work different on differnt size scales and they were different at the time of big bang and even speed turns out makes a difference. Either way we have to start with an observation.

 

But there is a danger of relying too strongly on those laws because we forget that we didn't make all the observations possible so there never can be a 100% certainty. You are making observations every day and you built up a very strong set of assuption to the point that it is impossible for you to believe something that would contradict them, like the optical illusion at the beginning. The feeling is so strong that even measuring the observation with objective tools won't change your mind. Common sense is just too overwhelming.

 

Another example is the medival view of the universe. Their belief in cristal heavenly spheres was so strong that they denied existance of meteores, because how could they go through those spheres without breaking them. So even though rocks were falling all around them they simply did not exist.

 

Their belief in a solid, unchangable sphere of stars was so strong that new stars just couldn't fit into that picture. So even though observations of a supernova so bright that it could be seen during the day are made in China and other places, for European astronomers it simply didn't exist.

 

This shows that the world view can be stronger than reality and that's why it's so difficult to change it or even to let go of it for a duration of a thought experiment.

 

I guess it's even harder to imagine not knowing something once you know it. That's why those thought experiments are especially difficult.

[arkain101]

Ark,

 

There is no such thing as a law of observation. Where in the hell would you even get such a concept? Sure as hell wasn't school or any physics related material.

 

I've been patient with your attitude, but I've had enough of it.

 

Althought it is true there is no official law, and I should probably not have used that term, but none the less, its there, and this is what special relativity is based on.

 

This law is otherwise expressed as, The fact that every observation exists in a frame, and therefore not all observations are the same from all frames.

 

Consider your observation device a zero point. This is where the 'interaction' occurs. All distances outwards are infact identically refered to as time. This is because the fastest anything can reach you is at C. Therefore, your future is anything outside of you. Since a future is not predictable, therefore, either is anything outside of you. It exists only when it has interacted with your frame.

[phoenixbyrd]

So umm yea... Two people that are chatting with each other in china right now isn't really happening because it isn't happening/interacting in my frame of observation? Man ... sorry for the attitude, but this is like arguing with someone who fully believe 2+2 = eleventeen.

 

And I'm sorry, but making crap up doesn't make things true. You can keep your fancy law of observation, as for me, I'll continue learning as much as I can from people who have a damn clue. Buh bye.

[arkain101]

I am talking about probability and uncertainty.

 

Yes things are happening that you can't see or hear, but it is difficult to creat a certainty in your observation.

 

Lets make for observable effects.

An object 1 light minute away, that is moving relatively slow. Say 10km/sec.

When you turn on your observation device you have 1min x 10km/s mispostion accuracy. Also any prediction of the course of that object, as it moves through meteor field will be dampered by your time distance delay.

so if it hits a meteor, it happens before u see it. Therefore it is further ahead than u can see. 2nd, if it changes velocity on that impace, (accelerataion) this will alter its travel.

 

So if you are trying to tell a person, where this object is going, your very ability to create an acurate prediction via observable measurments is directly effected by the time that seperates you, and we call this distance.

 

On the macro scale distance is quite predictable because well, space is quite slow and empty. So you have a very high probabilty of predicting that the moon will be x distance away from you tomorrow close to the same as it is today.

 

However, the faster you increase these actions, of these objects, the less accurate your predictions will become, and also, the time that seperates your observations , or distance of the actions, will hamper your predictions more.

 

So finally if we have everything moving at 99% the speed of light your ability to predict accurate details of the universe, distance, location, velocity, etc, will lessen.

so for your example;

Two people that are chatting with each other in china right now isn't really happening because it isn't happening/interacting in my frame of observation?

if they were peforming that act in a nano second, you would have a limitation of determining whether or not it was true if they talked, and what they talked about, because you are only in your frame, and thats where you can only observe from.

 

So you might be capable to send a signal and prove that some of the words they used were, hello , friends, and lol, but you will be unable to determine how long they talked..

however if you measure how long they talked you may have no ability to measure what they said.

 

This is my law of observation, Interactions only occur in your zero point frame. Your limitation of observatoin, and accuracy of predictability.

 

Also, this is exactly what relativity is based upon, that is, your frame is your own reality. What things look like in your frame, are not the same to other frames.

 

however the closer you are to one or both of these two 'chatters' the less time that is between your frame and your observation source, and your measurements will be able to generate different values of accuracies.

 

Or. Even on macro scale, if these chatters are a very long distance away and they are talking normally.

You can send in a signal pulse, to measure them, but while you wait for your data, they change what they are talking about. So while you get your info you write down, "school was", then you send in your next signal, and you recieve, "ladder and", and your 3rd signal reports, "shoe lace".

You've got some very clear words, but you have no idea what they are talking about.

 

Your frame is where certain reality is. And time or distance increase, mixed with velocity and acceleartion, alters what is your certain reality.

[arkain101]

and to add to this whole mess.

 

When you observe something moving that has a frequency. And you do not track the object.

 

For example, a flashing light (60hertz LED light) you are swinging around your head. If you dont follow the light with your observing device (your eyes) and you exclude knowledge of the string. Yyou will end up with mulitple positions of that light to observe. And so will the outside observer. There will be distance between each 'pulse'.

 

The faster you spin it, the more accurate you can prove where the light is, because you can get it down to 1 light, if you spin it at 1once every second.

 

The slower you spin the light, the more lights you will see, each pulse will be seperated by say 10 cm.. And you may see 10 lights.

 

However if you track the object with your measuring device, you can cause it to act as though it as rest, and it will be a singular object covering distance.

 

The tricky part is, that when an object is moving very very fast, its incredibly difficult to track it, thus you end up with several possibilities.

 

And in a linear example, for an object moving nearly C each photon will be coming from a different position sepeated by a distance almost equal to the wavelength of the frequency of the photons.

 

In this case you only get assumptions of where its going to be. To an inacurate device it will be a long streak. To an acurate device it will be a spread out set of dots.

[phoenixbyrd]

Boy oh boy. Go learn more about relativity. Einstien gave us a wonderfull model of physics to play with and you, you just go tearing through it with your limited understanding of what the hell it is and then try and throw limited understandings of hiesenbergs uncertainy principle and the observers effect to boot.

 

None of those things even remotely postulate that reality exists or is different for you compared to another observer. It's people like you who don't want to bother learning about the theories and what they mean who think thing's like this. I'm not trying to be harsh buddy, but you do need abit more education in those theories. Either find a good online study aide on each of them, ask your science teacher (if your still in school which I'm guessing you are given the drivel you spout), or find a scientist that'll give you some of thier free time to explaine them to you in simple slow words.

[arkain101]

Phoenixbyrd;

 

What do you mean? We werent talking about special relativity or quantum physics. Why are you telling me what I know or do not know about those theories?

 

I am refering to observable facts. You immediatly cast them down because you didnt ask to understand. I then said it isnt wrong because these things are included into other theories. Now you assume I am trying to explain relativity and Heisengberg Uncertainty. Wrong.

 

With all theory aside I am exposing that all observations are relatively uncertain.

 

It has nothing to do with what you know happens (like chinease girls talking).

 

It has to do with observing what you do not know is happening in your head. So it is not a suprise when we run into these effects in other theories.

[phoenixbyrd]

Correct me if I'm wrong but did you not state

 

I am talking about probability and uncertainty.

 

I am refering to observable facts. You immediatly cast them down because you didnt ask to understand.

 

Understand what? There's nothing there to understand, and certainly none of it is factual or even close to. How your observing these so called 'facts' is extremly perplexing, just boggles the mind.

 

You go on about probabilities (QM), Uncertainty (heisenberg), and relativity (good 'ol misunderstood einstien). Yet you would have me believe that your not just mashing up all three in some twisted ill concieved garbage?

 

With all theory aside I am exposing that all observations are relatively uncertain.

 

You've failed to do so. Sadly, using ill concieved and made up ideas does not expose anything. All you've shown is your ability to misunderstand not really too complex theories if you just applied yourself to them. And making crap up just completly loses all crediblitiy for yourself. Yea, it may seem that I have an attitude, but you know what, I'm not one that keeps quiet when I see obvious garbage. If you don't want to bother learning about the things your trying to talk about then don't be so alarmed when someone pops up and says your wrong. Did you get pissed off at your teacher when he/she said you were wrong on a test? Is that something you normally do? Do you argue with people that eleventeen is a real number?

 

It has to do with observing what you do not know is happening in your head.

 

Damnit ... can't think of the name of the song, but it is soooo your theme song!

[InfiniteNow]

Yet you would have me believe that your not just mashing up all three in some twisted ill concieved garbage?

...

And making crap up just completly loses all crediblitiy for yourself. Yea, it may seem that I have an attitude, but you know what, I'm not one that keeps quiet when I see obvious garbage. If you don't want to bother learning about the things your trying to talk about then don't be so alarmed when someone pops up and says your wrong. Did you get pissed off at your teacher when he/she said you were wrong on a test? Is that something you normally do? Do you argue with people that eleventeen is a real number?

...

Damnit ... can't think of the name of the song, but it is soooo your theme song!

 

Honestly, PB, that's got to be one of the strongest counter arguments I've ever read. You not only managed to express the real truth, but also had keen enough vision to pinpoint the exact areas of fault in the idea expressed. None of this emotional and interpretive nonsense, just pure unadulterated fact and evidence. I like it. :D Physics and mathematics is clearly all about how much you know and others don't. With a sharp wit such as yours, you should teach all of us numbskulls here on our forums, thus increasing the greatness which is we. :shrug:

[arkain101]

No harmful intentions or anything Phoenyx, but that post was funny!

 

If there is something sincere and informed you have to back up your 'intelligent arguments' I would be excited to hear it.

 

I am not here to say who is right and who is wrong. Rather what is right and what is wrong. I bring forth ideas, support it with logical examples and mathmatics when I can. I do so to hear opinions for those interested to respond. Whether or not that idea survives with me is dependent on what is there to argue it.

 

Yes I choose to write in ways such as; "If this is so, wouldnt such and such be correct?" instead of directly asking a question. Maybe that isnt the best method, but it kills more birds in one stone.

[hardkraft]

So umm yea... Two people that are chatting with each other in china right now isn't really happening because it isn't happening/interacting in my frame of observation?

 

So tell me who is talking in China right this second. Name names. I am pretty sure you don't know you just assume that somebody must be. The point is that the frame is so far removed from yours that you have no way of knowing. Even if you had a live feed from there it still would be delayed enough that you could only make guesses of who is acctually talking right this second. Another point is that it doesn't really matter. Even if they were speaking about their plans to kill you (which they probably would if they heard you talk :xparty:) they are far enough that it doesn't really affect you. You can assume all you want either way. It doesn't matter. I could say that most everybody is sleeping now and there is a rare moment inbetween words and you can't prove me wrong.

 

Now let's go back to physics. Let's say the sun was anihilated in an instant by some antimater monster. Now let's take Mars so you don't get confused with people, light and such. There are no people on Mars and as far as we know there is nobody to observe the sudden destruction of the sun. Those frames of refference are so removed that it doesn't make any difference anyway. Mars keeps rotating around non existen sun for many minutes to come. And you can screem all you want 'gawd, Mars, get with the program, sun is no more!' it doesn't matter to Mars one bit. Mars doesn't use your common sence and keeps on circling.

 

This is pretty elementary stuff. I would assume that somebody that heard of Heisenberg would know this. It just shows you the dangers of relying too much on common sense.

[Farsight]

Hi popular, thank you very much for sharing you interesting thoughts about the nature of time... Could you please try again/with other words to explain why - from your point of view - time slows down when travelling on high speed. When you have a certain interval (some sort of metronome), why does it tick slower when you are moving with a speed near c?

 

Sorry to be slow getting back to you Ernie, I've been on holiday, and only got back late last night. Here you go: time measures change, or motion, within some system, be it an electron, an atom, or some collection of atoms such as a brain, a body, a clock, or a rocketship. All these things can be thought of as being made up of photons whizzing around in circles, or whizzing around between the circles. If you jump into a rocketship and zoom off at .99c, all this whizzing around has to cover much greater distances than it did previously, so it takes longer to happen. It doesn't happen as fast as it did. Things still change, but not as fast as they did, and time is the measure of the change, so "time slows down". You can find out more about this if you read up on Special Relativity. Note that time also slows down in a high-gravity situation, which is General Relativity.

 

PhoenixBird: If you're reading this, sorry to see you got banned. I guess you were a little acerbic. Oddly enough, I've been having thoughts about space and light, wherein space is nothing without it, and matter is in essence "made out of light". This does rather mean distances don't exist if there's no light, no how, no where. I take some pride in being an ontological sort of guy, and whilst "no light = no distance" sounds rather odd, please trust me that it isn't quite as ridiculous or as philosophical as it might seem.