TIME EXPLAINED (v2.1)

[Farsight]

As evidenced by Pound-Rebka, firecracker!

 

Pound-Rebka experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

And gravity!

[Hillel]

Nice... But there a lot of holes in the explanation.

For example, I didn't see a word about the problem of explaining motion without the idea of time (like the Xenon paradox).

[ldsoftwaresteve]

It's been a while. I see there are a few changes on board.

If time doesn't exist except as an internal mental construct, what does that say about our ability to project?

And if we've done that with time, what else have we done it with?

[InfiniteNow]

Nice... But there a lot of holes in the explanation.

For example, I didn't see a word about the problem of explaining motion without the idea of time (like the Xenon paradox).

 

He supplements that with his "Motion: Explained" paper... another one with no maths and no testable predictions. Farsight has pretty much been debunked as a crackpot on every single science site on which he's participated across the web.

 

 

(btw: It's nice seeing you around, steve. I hope all is well with you and yours. :eek_big: )

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Thank you InfiniteNow. You're one of the few I've missed. Can't say I'll stick around very long though. :)

 

Is there a discussion going on about Now? I do believe we project time into existence and shouldn't. But it's hard as hell to prove. A lot of mass to move, eh?

 

The thing about it is - if we are doing something wrong, we're probably doing it in other areas of perception as well.

 

And another observation would be that we might have created a blindspot which keeps other things hidden from us too.

 

cheers old pal. :)

[InfiniteNow]

Is there a discussion going on about Now? I do believe we project time into existence and shouldn't. But it's hard as hell to prove. A lot of mass to move, eh?

Lol. Indeed. There is the thread to which I linked below, but I haven't really found it very satisfying to be honest. I really got a lot out my "Moments and Events" thread, but it's still too far into the metaphysical to provide real empirical or physical appeal... however, YMMV. :)

 

 

http://hypography.com/forums/strange-claims-forum/10103-now-border-universe.html

 

 

Be well, friend. :)

 

 

InfiniteNow:You have a very gentle spirit, but I'd expect that from one who contemplates the moment. Life IS now. We prepare for the next moment by contemplating past moments.

'Now' is:

the tip of the nose of the stallion that races to defend its harem.

the hand of the newborn with eyes squeezed shut that reaches out to touch existence.

the first kiss.

the bleeding edge of life.

meaning.

[Hillel]

He supplements that with his "Motion: Explained" paper... another one with no maths and no testable predictions. Farsight has pretty much been debunked as a crackpot on every single science site on which he's participated across the web.

 

 

(btw: It's nice seeing you around, steve. I hope all is well with you and yours. :) )

 

 

Sorry, but being a foreigner (in many meanings...), I'm just not quite sure I've got you... Is there realy a paper called "Motion: Explained"? I searched and didn't found it. I also don't get you with the "no maths and no testable predictions" thing. don't it's a good idea to explain philosophic stuff (and this is philosophy, not science, after all) with no math?

[InfiniteNow]

Sorry, but being a foreigner (in many meanings...), I'm just not quite sure I've got you... Is there realy a paper called "Motion: Explained"? I searched and didn't found it. I also don't get you with the "no maths and no testable predictions" thing. don't it's a good idea to explain philosophic stuff (and this is philosophy, not science, after all) with no math?

 

Hi Hillel,

 

I may have been mistaken on the "Motion Explained" thing. Sorry about that. The issue is that the ideas have no basis in reality. They offer no way to test them, and no way to be falsified. This is critical. What good is it if it is nothing more than personal speculation and conjecture? He may as well be suggesting that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns.

 

Also, I'm not a big fan of philosophy. I like reality, and this is, after all, the physics and mathematics forum.

 

Math is important. It's nothing more than fiction if it provides no math.

 

 

Long story short is that Farsight has some interesting speculations, but they do not even begin to approach the threshold of relevance or reality since they offer no math and no testable predictions.

 

You can philosophize all you want. That won't make it a valid representation of the reality in which we exist.

[Hillel]

Hi Hillel,

 

I may have been mistaken on the "Motion Explained" thing. Sorry about that. The issue is that the ideas have no basis in reality. They offer no way to test them, and no way to be falsified. This is critical. What good is it if it is nothing more than personal speculation and conjecture? He may as well be suggesting that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns.

 

Also, I'm not a big fan of philosophy. I like reality, and this is, after all, the physics and mathematics forum.

 

Math is important. It's nothing more than fiction if it provides no math.

 

 

Long story short is that Farsight has some interesting speculations, but they do not even begin to approach the threshold of relevance or reality since they offer no math and no testable predictions.

 

You can philosophize all you want. That won't make it a valid representation of the reality in which we exist.

 

 

Infinite,

 

Thanks for the explanation. I get the spirit now. I just happen to disagree with you about the principe. Every science has a profound basis behind it, and that thing is called philosophy. If you ask Einstein what is time, he'll answer you: what is measured by a clock. But it isn't really what time is. It's a technical definition that doesn't explain what the real thing is. But /i'm afraid my English is just not good enough to carry this argument on (what a shame...), so I will stop at this point.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Oh my. I thought Philosophy dealt with Man's relationship with existence. The intent and implication being that if fundamental identifications change in our understanding of that relationship they would propogate down to the individual sciences.

The concept of time is a perfect example of that. If we have (IF! IF!) projected time into existence when it isn't really there, the ice upon which one hell of a lot of scientific effort stands is pretty thin.

I'd say it's germane because it should generate doubt. If it doesn't, something is wrong with our 'scientific method'.

 

And now, for our dose of indirect Argument from Authority:

 

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla)

 

** The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge.

Daniel J. Boorstin (1914 - )

[patrick23]

Farsight, see if you can find my blog,"Dimensions" .I think it could add to your argument.

If you can't find it , help me out, I'm new and I'm not sure how to post it. Thanks

[Vox]

 

 

If we consider motion we need to agree also how no motion is defined..if I will simplify, motion / thing´s needs contrast to manifest and that contrast is no motion / No-thing

In the thread there have been definitions like "very thin slice of space" as now or no motion.. but that definition contains "thing"..so it contains also motion in it..

My personal view is that time is motion but it is liked/created by/ with no-thing´s which contains all diffrent states of space. Smallest motion is 2 (diffrent) No-thing´s combined and motion is created. No-thing can be also called "now" timeless as such but containing potential for motion to be observed. The challege for me is to ponder how these 2 No-things are separted due they need to be different otherwise motion can not be observed. Planck´s "time" separating these no-things from each other? Oversimplified; The space is motionless no-thing´s ("block´s") in now but to us it comes observable only when motion is "applied" and "things" appear...From nowhere B)

[HydrogenBond]

Say we have a movie camera, and we are filming the motion of an object. There are two time based variables we need to control. The first is the shutter speed we will use for each frame. For our movie, we will use 1/100 sec. The second is the frame rate. We will use 50 frames/sec or 0.02 seconds. These two timed events will interact with the time rate within the motion to give us a given output.

 

When we play our film we will see continuous motion but a little fuzzy due to the low shutter speed and motion blur. The extra time element in the motion compare to what can be captured with the slow shutter speed creates uncertainty in position.

 

If we look at our film, frame to frame, we then notice the motion is quantized into 60 steps for each second of motion. We have lost time in the motion because our frame rate reflects chunks of the motion in time. The quantum effect is due to lost time. Because our shutter speed is slow 1/100 second, we also notice motion blur within each frame. This actually helps to give us a better sense of overlap of the quanta, since the motion blur is extra time captured which becomes uncertainty in position; reduces the distinct quantum effect due to the time lost in the frame rate.

 

If we increase the shutter speed to 1/1000 sec, we can stop the action in each frame so there is no motion blur (no extra time in the photo). But due to the low frame rate, we start to notice a quantum jerking in the movie, due to the slow frame rate and lack of uncertainty in distance.

 

When we look at nature and we go to great effort to make sure our experiment is not adding a special effect in time. Even after that, we still see the effects like uncertainty and quantum we can simulate by tweaking time. I have concluded this is actually due to time potential in a physical sense, rather than a time artifact of experiments.

[Vox]

When we look at nature and we go to great effort to make sure our experiment is not adding a special effect in time. Even after that, we still see the effects like uncertainty and quantum we can simulate by tweaking time. I have concluded this is actually due to time potential in a physical sense, rather than a time artifact of experiments.

 

Could this be stated as following: Space is infinite potential for infinite motion(s) (to) manifest, observed in speeds less than speed of light due " in the speed" of "speed of light" space is motionless potential; no time, no motion?

[Ben]

When we look at nature and we go to great effort to make sure our experiment is not adding a special effect in time.

Sorry, I don't fully understand this statement.

 

First by "we" I assume mean you and your fellow scientists. Then you and I are colleagues!

 

Second by "not adding a special effect in time" I assume you mean that when you and I, as scientists, perform an experiment on Monday,we expect the same result of the same same experiment on Tuesday.

 

Or did we, as scientific equals, misunderstand each other? I don't know about you in your daily practising scientific life, but if I cannot repeat on Tuesday the result I got on Monday, the last thing I would blame is time.

we can simulate by tweaking time.

How do I "tweak time"?

due to time potential

And what in the name of all that is holy is "time potential"?

 

Could this be stated as following: Space is infinite potential for infinite motion(s) (to) manifest, observed in speeds less than speed of light due " in the speed" of "speed of light" space is motionless potential?

No. Because it is pure gibberish.

[Vox]

 

No. Because it is pure gibberish.

 

I would appreciate to get some kind of explanation what is then the "correct understanding" concerning time and "light speed" relation for example, if my sentence was "pure gibberish"

[ralfcis]

I find this very interesting, unfortunately I don't have the time to read it. You can stop time for a living thing through freezing but time still continues all around it in an objective sense. And as you go towards absolute zero, motion also trends towards zero (but can't reach it due to quantum uncertainty). Yet the operation of atomic clocks, which I consider to be time microscopes, also depends on freezing. You say time is due to motion but these  examples show time still exists and its resolution enhanced when motion is suppressed by freezing.