Time as an objective entity is invalid as an actual object

[chroot]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
As Voltare once said, "If you wish to converse with me, then define your terms."

Perhaps you mean Voltaire.

Otherwise, you might as well start disqualifying posters on all misspellings.

You have told probably ten people in this thread alone to "learn English" and "go to Collage [sic]" and so on. If you're going to demand that other posters use English properly, it only seems appropriate that you should, also. Don't you agree?

- Warren

 

[HeavensWarFire]

this is what i don't understand



Everyone supposedly is getting all wrecked up about me, but yet, all i see are thoughts that highly allegational without any real grounds behind them. How is that different than from what i am doing?

And that's why your getting on peoples nerves, because you didn't know what you were talking about when you started to type.

If i have actually been wrong, then why is it that no one can show it?

 

[jcsd]

That's 'cos you're obviously wrong; time is emprical, it's effects can be observed quite clearly and it's easy to find ways of measuring it, it's not something that can just be 'transformed away'.

 

[HeavensWarFire]

Is it?



Emperical eh? Like a tree, or a rock is emperical? Where can i find a piece of this thing called Time?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
Emperical eh? Like a tree, or a rock is emperical? Where can i find a piece of this thing called Time?

No, I explained this already. Time is like the HEIGHT of the tree, not the tree itself. Its a physical dimension very much like the other 3. And you can also measure time according to the tree in various ways of course. Age for example.

 

[HeavensWarFire]

Likewise



I have explained my meanings, but no one is reading.

Time relates to change. I have explained this.

But we are back to semantics on the word "Physical"?

 

[jcsd]

What's unempirical about time?

I'd challenge you construct any model that tries to represent physical reality without time (though I am told that time disappears in the Wheeler-Dewitt equation).

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
No, I explained this already. Time is like the HEIGHT of the tree, not the tree itself. Its a physical dimension very much like the other 3. And you can also measure time according to the tree in various ways of course. Age for example.

Russ, a pause, if you measure the distance something travels, then you measure the time, you are measuring space twice...

Time is not a physical thing he is right about that, it can be measured, but it has no solidity.....in my past posting(s) I had mentioned that time was 'limited' at around lightspeed, but even that is an "Illusion" (of sorts) as a Black Hole's gravitational well must have speed(s) exceeding lightspeed as escape velocity, ergo even light speed is an "Illusory Benchmark".

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by jcsd
What's unempirical about time?

I'd challenge you construct any model that tries to represent physical reality without time (though I am told that time disappears in the Wheeler-Dewitt equation).

Simple, "end point" and "start point" are identical in physical construct, now explode it out into X^x pieces, energetically enabled to reconsruct itself into it's own (identical) origin, the motions within result in having "No Relative Meaning" with respect to any (individual/collective) metering of them, as the end result is gauranteed, all your measuring is the motions of them.

 

[jcsd]

But you cna't define the 'start' or 'end' without time.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
If i have actually been wrong, then why is it that no one can show it?

Because you have made no falsifiable statements. Physics works this way:

• 
  Alice: I claim that my theory says the value of parameter $\alpha$ should be 2.
  
  Bob: My experiment measures the value of $\alpha$ as 4.1 ± 0.23 with a confidence interval of 99%. This means your theory is probably incorrect.

It does not work this way:

• 
  Alice: I claim that time as an objective entity is invalid as an actual object.
  
  Bob: But time is like space.
  
  Alice: It depends on how you define 'time.'

Notice the difference. In the first case, the claim is falsifiable. One can do an experiment and reach one of three conclusions:

a) The theory agrees with experiment within experimental error.
b) The theory does not agree with experiment within experimental error.
c) The agreement is not well-established due to experimental error.

In the second case, the claim is not falsifiable. It does not make any predictions which can be used to gauge the claim's validity. No one can say whether or not it is right or wrong. It is philosophy.

This is the reason why no one can show why you're wrong: because you're talking about philosophy, not physics. All we can do is go on and on about what your definition is, what my definition is, and so on. Philosophers seem to enjoy this kind of dialogue, but physicists don't usually care too much for it. Note carefully that our disinterest in your philosophy does not mean your philosophy is right -- it simply means we don't care about it.

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Russ, a pause, if you measure the distance something travels, then you measure the time, you are measuring space twice...

Time is not a physical thing he is right about that, it can be measured, but it has no solidity.

Well, then maybe we do need to define what "physical" or "physically real" means. Because obviously whether time is or isn't follows directly from the definition.

You appear to be defining "physical" as having dimensions in space (length, width, height). By that definition, its axiomatic that time isn't a physical dimension.

The dictionary is not that specific: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=physical
1. Of or pertaining to nature (as including all created existences); in accordance with the laws of nature
2. Of or pertaining to physics, or natural philosophy; treating of, or relating to, the causes and connections of natural phenomena

Clearly by these definitions, time is physically real: Time is something we can observe, measure, and experience in the physical universe (nature in the first definition). And time is a connection between natural phenomena that pertains to the the laws of physics (second definition).

I had mentioned that time was 'limited' at around lightspeed, but even that is an "Illusion" (of sorts) as a Black Hole's gravitational well must have speed(s) exceeding lightspeed as escape velocity, ergo even light speed is an "Illusory Benchmark".

Ironic choice of example - by definition, what lies inside of a black hole's event horizon is not a part of the physical unverse. All we THINK we know about the inside of a black hole is from data collected outside the event horizon.

All we can do is go on and on about what your definition is, what my definition is, and so on. Philosophers seem to enjoy this kind of dialogue, but physicists don't usually care too much for it.

This is of course because scientists and engineers all agree (implicitly) to a set of rules and definitions as a starting point for all discussions. The terms don't have to be defined at the start of a conversation because they've already been accepted. Its a lot like learning a language really.

Applied to the points above, if you want to argue the definitions, you do that in the philosophy forum. If you want to argue the implications and physical to the laws of physics, you do that here. But by posting here, it is implied that you accept the accepted definitions.

 

[deltabourne]

HeavensWarFire, your whole argument seems to be based on calling other people names and being generally unagreeable to anyone who doesn't agree with your 'theory' (which i'll have to say is quite wrong imo). I think you should stop calling people names when you can't spell above an elementary level and try to READ and COMPREHEND what people are telling you.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
(SNIP...sorta...) Well, then maybe we do need to define what "physical" or "physically real" means. Because obviously whether time is or isn't follows directly from the definition. O.K. "physical" is tangible, having mass/shape/and longevity of existence...
You appear to be defining "physical" as having dimensions in space (length, width, height). By that definition, its axiomatic that time isn't a physical dimension.
The dictionary is not that specific: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=physical
1. Of or pertaining to nature (as including all created existences); in accordance with the laws of nature
2. Of or pertaining to physics, or natural philosophy; treating of, or relating to, the causes and connections of natural phenomena
Humm, you state that the dictionary is "NOT that specific", then state that by these definitions "time is physically real" but NOTHING in those definitions says that!
Clearly by these definitions, time is physically real: Time is something we can observe, measure, and experience (Only as an "Idea" not as a 'physical' {Tangible} phenmenon) in the physical universe (nature in the first definition). And time is a connection between natural phenomena that pertains to the the laws of physics (second definition). Ironic choice of example - by definition, what lies inside of a black hole's event horizon is not a part of the physical unverse. All we THINK we know about the inside of a black hole is from data collected outside the event horizon. This is of course because scientists and engineers all agree (implicitly) to a set of rules and definitions as a starting point for all discussions. The terms don't have to be defined at the start of a conversation because they've already been accepted. Its a lot like learning a language really. (SNoP)
Humm, O.K.(?) (why are you telling me this?) you mean like the 'outside' observation of the fact that light does not escape from the interior of what would otherwise surely be emitting light, (as evidenced by all of the energetic activity in the immediate area) from whence we draw the conclusion that the escape velocity must exceed lightspeed...you have a problem with this kind on logic/knowledge@work?

 

[Kanelous]

I agree.

Time is a man made increment to describe observable events.

Time does not exist except as a mathematical relationship between distance and the increment required to get from place to place.

For example. Point your finger at a star, then move it quickly to the next nearest star. If you extend the plane of your finger - then how fast is the plane moving as it arcs to the next star.

In feet per second it would be astronomical, but if you decided that it represent 1 star (star1) second it would seem slow.

Einsteins prediction of E=mc2 was correct that mass has an enormous amount of stored energy, but since it requires that time exists as a dimension - it is obviously flawed.

If Einstein predicated that E=(m)(Star1) would he have been wrong?

The reason his prediction seemed so accurate was likely due to the relationship between primary force (gravity), light and the creation and evolution of mass through the accumulation of accelerating force.

I believe that light is the stimulation of primary force and that it does not travel at all.

Yes, the observation of it appears as though it is traveling at a high speed, but in reality it is not moving - it is doing nothing more than creating a ripple in the nearly solid force field. That is why the speed of light appears to be constant whether you are traveling toward or away from the source at any speed.

You are not seeing the light, but are seeing what the light did to the force field.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry, MRP, those definitions were so straightforward that I can't reword them in any way to make them more straightforward. All I can say is try reading them again (though you even used the word "longevity" - a reference to time, so it almost seemed like you got it).

And my point about the black hole was simply the irony of your trying to describe something in the observable universe by citing an example not in the observable universe.

Let me try a different tack: describe for me in words the position (location in the physical universe) of an object (a specific building for example) WITHOUT using any reference to time. I claim it can't be done. (similar to what jcsd said)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by jcsd
But you cna't define the 'start' or 'end' without time.

They are identical, I need not identify them, they are interchangable...because 'No time' as substance/substantive/object-reality...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Sorry, MRP, those definitions were so straightforward that I can't reword them in any way to make them more straightforward. All I can say is try reading them again (though you even used the word "longevity" - a reference to time, so it almost seemed like you got it).
And my point about the black hole was simply the irony of your trying to describe something in the observable universe by citing an example not in the observable universe. What I've used is observable, the event horizon, and the 'blackness' indicative of a lack of "luminesence" that tells of the inability of light's escape...
Let me try a different tack: describe for me in words the position (location in the physical universe) of an object (a specific building for example) WITHOUT using any reference to time. I claim it can't be done. (similar to what jcsd said)

From that site russ; "Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics." the definition of "physical" but time is neither energy nor matter, but a measurement of a comparitive cycle rate agaist the motion to establish differences betweens motions...point being the cycle rate that is choosen is entirely arbitrary, nd there is NO physical entity that tells us what the exact/correct/right/precise/UNIVERSAL time actually is, cause ther is none.

"In an infinity, there can be/is no time", if this universe is born of the infinite, then the 'time' that we so frequently use, in the Universe must be some sort of "illusion", it is how that little dilema gets resolved as even though it is a highly practical tools, it is not based upon anything other then an idea...the practising of an "Ideal"...but no substatiation, no "meter" ('cycle counter' AKA clock) that can be proven as having "relative meaning" to the entirety of the Universe. (Ain't there)

 

[jcsd]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
They are identical, I need not identify them, they are interchangable...because 'No time' as substance/substantive/object-reality...

You must define the distance in time between them otherwise you can only obtain time indpenednt solutions which will not give you as good results as time-dependnet solutions.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
From that site russ; "Of or relating to [bold added] matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics." the definition of "physical" but time is neither energy nor matter

Time is most certainly a piece of information relating to matter and energy in the same way that length and width and mass are.

"In an infinity, there can be/is no time"

I'm not sure where that quote is from, but its quite simply wrong. That would rule out length and width as well.

They are identical, I need not identify them, they are interchangable...because 'No time' as substance/substantive/object-reality...

[?] [?] So you've never been in a race before? I can certainly tell the difference between the start and end of a 5k and my sister looks a lot different at the end of a marathon than at the start.

It seems as though you are starting with the assumption that there is no time and using that assumption to define things like "start" and "end." You are free to do that (in philosophy anyway - physics already has definitions you must use in physics) but even assumptions have to agree with applicable observations - and yours do not.

And I'd like an answer to this challenge:

Let me try a different tack: describe for me in words the position (location in the physical universe) of an object (a specific building for example) WITHOUT using any reference to time. I claim it can't be done. (similar to what jcsd said)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Time is most certainly a piece of information Please read the title, "...Invalid as an actual object" relating to matter and energy in the same way that length and width and mass Sorry, NOT mass! as that is physical and you cannot show me a physical component of time are. I'm not sure where that quote is from, but its quite simply wrong. That would rule out length and width as well. infinity does that, "un-measurable"

[?] [?] So you've never been in a race before? I can certainly tell the difference between the start and end of a 5k and my sister looks a lot different at the end of a marathon than at the start. In the Analogy that I had set up, (to provide jscd with a MODEL!) I had stated that the beginning point and end point were identical, please follow along with what is written, or the way it is written, (not what you would like to think is written(?))

Russ. of all of the cycles of motion that I can use to establish a "rate of timing" (earth time, Jupiter time, Mercury time, Solar time) which one of the right one? the universal one, which one arises from physicality?? or physical reality??

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Russ. of all of the cycles of motion that I can use to establish a "rate of timing" (earth time, Jupiter time, Mercury time, Solar time) which one of the right one? the universal one, which one arises from physicality?? or physical reality??

All are equally valid and which to use depends only on the specifics of the application. There is no universal one. If your argument is based on a lack of a universal time, that's the same as saying there is also no universal length, width, or height.

Again, the fact that the UNITS of time we use are arbitrary does not mean time itself is not real.

Also:

Describe for me in words the position (location in the physical universe) of an object (a specific building for example) WITHOUT using any reference to time. I claim it can't be done. (similar to what jcsd said)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Describe for me in words the position (location in the physical universe) of an object (a specific building for example) WITHOUT using any reference to time. I claim it can't be done. (similar to what jcsd said)

...this planet! (Earth) at, roughly the center of the Universe, the Universe's Luminous 'sphere'...whenever...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
All are equally valid and which to use depends only on the specifics of the application. So your use, is just as arbitrary... There is no universal one. If your argument is based on a lack of a universal time, that's the same as saying there is also no universal length, width, or height. Good point...and is there?

Again, the fact that the UNITS of time we use are arbitrary does not mean time itself is not real. Humm, don't know for certain just that one, but clearly it doesn't prove that it is real, and (sorry) you haven't either...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
...this planet! (Earth) at, roughly the center of the Universe, the Universe's Luminous 'sphere'...whenever...

"whenever" is a time reference - and beyond that, an incorrect time reference. "Whenever" implies that it has always and will always be here.

So your use, is just as arbitrary

I never said it wasn't. What's your point?

Good point...and is there? [universal spatial coordinates]

No.

Be careful here, MRP, whether intentional or not, you are spiraling rapidly down into what ends up looking like an attempt to prove that "reality" itself does not exist.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

My point is simple if it isn't all arbitrary then it has a physical component that would lead me to believe that it was existent, since there isn't one, the "arbitrariness" of it all leads me to see that there is a reason(s) why there is no physical proof, and helps me to know that it is simply the application of an "Ideal" hence no "physically existent" component to it.

Location/location/location?

(this planet! (Earth) at, roughly the center of the Universe, the Universe's Luminous 'sphere')

As to your last statement, HUH?

P.S. case you hadn't notice I haven't tried to disprove time as "A useful thing", as "An ability to meter motion", especially relative motions as that it what 'timing' is about, the act of it, but in the 'Largesse' of nessecary knowledge of the construct of the Cosmos it is requisite that the conundrum of how an infinity could have "No time", and our universe "Have time", must be "resolvable" by anyone who proposes tackling those kinds of questions...so perhaps it is you who should be more careful...HUH! whatdayathink?

 

[russ_watters]

A cesium atom does not oscillate at an arbitrary rate.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
A cesium atom does not oscillate at an arbitrary rate.

(Sorry!) So you mean that if you heat it, chill it, electrocute it, magnetise it (or all of the space around it) it still keeps that oscillation rate? even in the center of the Sun at the Gravitational pressure(s) achievable there? Ya sure 'bout that?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
(Sorry!) So you mean that if you heat it, chill it, electrocute it, magnetise it (or all of the space around it) it still keeps that oscillation rate? even in the center of the Sun at the Gravitational pressure(s) achievable there? Ya sure 'bout that?

I said nothing of those effects. But they are not arbitrary either.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I said nothing of those effects. But they are not arbitrary either.

Humm, I did, and it renders the 'oscillations of the Cesium atom' as arbitrary, AKA not fixed, not "physically attached", no "Objective entity"...just the application of an 'Ideal' to a reality..

After all russ, all a clock is is a secodary counter/measure that permits us to measure 'relative' measurements...when a 4 inch dia. clock, cycles once, we have a 'foot' of time, we use that measure to relitivize the other measures of space that we took in the distance traveled and then apply the entirely arbitrary secondary measure as to allow us a baseline of comparision, but the baseline is not derived from anything that qualifies as "objective entity", but simply the observation of the distance traveled, by the Earth, in respect of the Sun...No time russ, not as an "object existent in reality".
(even though we can create the 'objects' to do this kind of cyclic counting for us)

 

[Jimmy]

Hello. I'm new here and found this thread interesting. I'll state up front that I have no formal education in physics above an associates degree in electronic egineering technology. Anything I say may be taken with a grain of salt. I should say, rather, I won't be offended if someone tells me to get lost. :)

I've often thought about time as it relates to physics (SR) and how we perceive the 'flow' of time or alternately, our motion through time. Don't worry, this isn't the beginning of some cranky theory.

Consider the three spatial dimensions. 3D-Space has three axes which are mutually perpindicular. These three axes define the degrees of freedom of motion which we can experience in that space. We can move forward, backward, left, right, up and down. We can also rotate around each of these axes in two different directions.

There are two other degrees of freedom that I have not mentioned: Faster and slower. On the surface, they seem to be completely unlike the other motions I've listed above.

Consider Space-time. When an object is plotted on a space-time diagram, acceleration (a change in speed) appears to be a change in direction or a rotation around a fourth axes. I realize that this isn't evidence that time is a physical dimension but wouldn't a fourth physical dimension be necessary to accommodate the extra degree of freedom that acceleration entails? This is not a rhetorical question and I am interested in everyone's thoughts on this.

If we consider the three spatial dimensions as physical and time as just an abstraction, does that leave any room physically for acceleration? It seems to me, and I freely admit that I could be wrong, that a fourth 'physical' dimension is needed to go faster and slower. The physical sensation of a change in speed is curiously similar as that of a spatial rotation. Again, I realize that this isn't proof but it is compelling for me.

Of course, there are definite asymmetries bewteen spatial rotations and acceleration (change in speed). An object can rotate indefinately in space but we certainly can't 'rotate' indefinitely around this fourth axis. There is a definite limit on how fast we can go or how much we can rotate around this fourth axis. Can acceleration in this sense be considered a hyperbolic rotation? I'm not sure of the details but wouldn't you have to use the hyperbolic functions to describe acceleration in a 4D context?

When considering time to be a physical property of the universe, as in SR and GR, the physical implications such as time dilation, length contraction, etc, seem to be confirmed to a high degree of accuracy eperimentally.

Like I said above, I'm not a physicist and I am curious as to whether my thinking is correct if even partially.

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by Jimmy
Hello. I'm new here and found this thread interesting. I'll state up front that I have no formal education in physics above an associates degree in electronic egineering technology. Anything I say may be taken with a grain of salt. I should say, rather, I won't be offended if someone tells me to get lost. :)

I've often thought about time as it relates to physics (SR) and how we perceive the 'flow' of time or alternately, our motion through time. Don't worry, this isn't the beginning of some cranky theory.

Consider the three spatial dimensions. 3D-Space has three axes which are mutually perpindicular. These three axes define the degrees of freedom of motion which we can experience in that space. We can move forward, backward, left, right, up and down. We can also rotate around each of these axes in two different directions.

There are two other degrees of freedom that I have not mentioned: Faster and slower. On the surface, they seem to be completely unlike the other motions I've listed above.

Consider Space-time. When an object is plotted on a space-time diagram, acceleration (a change in speed) appears to be a change in direction or a rotation around a fourth axes. I realize that this isn't evidence that time is a physical dimension but wouldn't a fourth physical dimension be necessary to accommodate the extra degree of freedom that acceleration entails? This is not a rhetorical question and I am interested in everyone's thoughts on this.

If we consider the three spatial dimensions as physical and time as just an abstraction, does that leave any room physically for acceleration? It seems to me, and I freely admit that I could be wrong, that a fourth 'physical' dimension is needed to go faster and slower. The physical sensation of a change in speed is curiously similar as that of a spatial rotation. Again, I realize that this isn't proof but it is compelling for me.

Of course, there are definite asymmetries bewteen spatial rotations and acceleration (change in speed). An object can rotate indefinately in space but we certainly can't 'rotate' indefinitely around this fourth axis. There is a definite limit on how fast we can go or how much we can rotate around this fourth axis. Can acceleration in this sense be considered a hyperbolic rotation? I'm not sure of the details but wouldn't you have to use the hyperbolic functions to describe acceleration in a 4D context?

When considering time to be a physical property of the universe, as in SR and GR, the physical implications such as time dilation, length contraction, etc, seem to be confirmed to a high degree of accuracy eperimentally.

Like I said above, I'm not a physicist and I am curious as to whether my thinking is correct if even partially.

The problem seems to relate to the SPACE itself that is dynamic, ie:Contracting Frames and Expanding Frames.

If one was to know that the spacetime you occupy is in Expansion, then say you move to another part within this spacetime, then it is obvious that the space you trancend is scale dependant. From one location to another the space that surrounds you will be moving away from you in all directions (expansion) what you experience is the dilation of movement 'in-between', from loaction to location.

Now if one was to move from a 'contracting' frame to an Expanding frame, then you would have to move from Galaxy to Galaxy, with the intervening space being the 'Expanding frame', upon arrival you would have to agree that the Galaxy that arrive at would appear to be in Contraction.

It seems counter-intuitive that we exist inside spacetime (Galaxy) that is steady, the space we have all around us is expanding by a different process that of the intervening space between Galaxies, namely Galaxies have Stars that produce Photon Pressure, this gives Spacetime its own steady-state of Spacetime.

Quote:It seems to me, and I freely admit that I could be wrong, that a fourth 'physical' dimension is needed to go faster and slower. The physical sensation of a change in speed is curiously similar as that of a spatial rotation. Again, I realize that this isn't proof but it is compelling for me.
But this cannot have another dimension hidden within?..this is what Galaxies are, they are fused space(the intervening expanding space) with another space (photon-space around matter) into a dimensional area we call Spacetime. Any motion within Galaxies is along 3-dimensional routes that are equivilent, not until you leave a Galaxy would you be able to determine the space you are moving in(intervening space) has no Time componant, and is completely 2-dimensional, and all routes are now restricted to just motions along these dimensional routes, fixed and have constant restrictions such non-rotational motions.

The straightest path through spacetime(Galaxies-the more matter the more curved space) is along the curves caused by Matter.

The straightest path through space is always fixed as there is no Matter, no 'Time-curves', and is therefore instant and direct.