Is Time Just an Idea?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
creation
Posts: 929
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 10th, 2020, 12:17 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 11:37 am
creation wrote:If you want to keep insisting, "Words have a standard meaning".
Do not simply tell me that I have been saying "Words have a standard meaning". Quote the passage in which you propose that I have said that. Preferably also read the passage before quoting it.
Steve3007 wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 11:37 am
I you do not understand any of the meaning of any of the terminology in the above, please say so. If you do not say, I assume you know the standard meanings, in this context, of all the words I'm using.
Steve3007 wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 11:37 am
I have no idea what you mean by the above statement. It simply makes no sense, given the standard definitions of terms like "velocity" and "reference frame".
Steve3007 wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 11:37 am
What you have said above is an incorrect description of what 'empirical observations have supposedly "confirmed"'. It is an incorrect use of words like "accelerate". Do you wish to give an alternative definition of the word "accelerate" to the standard definition? Do you know the standard definition of that word?
Steve3007 wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 11:37 am
Creation, if you want me to continue talking to you, please first research some basic terminology. It's not "jargon". Just simple words like "velocity", "accelerate", "inertial". "reference frame" and "proof". If you disagree with the standard definitions of those terms please provide your own.
Steve3007 wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 11:37 am
The standard definition of "acceleration" is "rate of change of velocity with respect to time".
These quoted passages I propose is where you have said, "Words have a standard meaning".

Now, of course words CAN have a "standard meaning" for the very short time period people are in agreement and acceptance of what the "standard" meaning of a word will be, but that does not last for to long anyway.

I have already explained WHY words do not have a "standard meaning" in the absolute sense.

I also expressed a test and experiment you could do to see just how much or how little there really is of a "standard meaning" for words. You obviously did not want to test this with the experiment.

creation
Posts: 929
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 10th, 2020, 12:19 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 11:45 am
creation wrote:Also, it would be great if you just stayed on the topic and discussed that instead of these deflecting issues
An excellent suggestion. Nice talking to you again.
So, do we agree on the "standard meaning" for the word 'time'?

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2159
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Terrapin Station » January 10th, 2020, 12:50 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 9:11 am

As I've said at various times in the past, I simply fall back to which ideas and concepts are useful for helping us to achieve our goals. One of the primary goals that we all share is the goal of successfully describing and predicting our sensations.

That's why, when you stated your philosophical position (the "-ism" to which you subscribe) I asked "how's that working out for you?". I meant to ask whether that position helps you to achieve your goals.
Ah--my only goal when it comes to philosophy is to address things as they really are. (Which, unlike some others, I believe we can do.)

User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 130
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Wittgenstein

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Thomyum2 » January 10th, 2020, 1:39 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 9:11 am
They are words for quantities that can be represented by terms in mathematical equations that relate to measurable experiences/sensations. But I think you'll still find some people expressing scepticism that a quantity like "strangeness" (a property of quarks), for example, is not just part of the fevered imagination of some physicists, who have wrapped themselves so tightly in their mathematics that they've lost their good old fashioned common sense. I think some people on this site will tell you something like that. Those people probably won't say the same thing about a property like length. Which I think is interesting.
...
But perhaps it's even more interesting that, as you've said, some people have mystical notions about time despite the fact that (unlike strangeness) it's as familiar and everyday a concept as length.
This is one reason I think Henri Bergson's distinction between 'mathematical time' and 'real time', or what he called 'duration' (as it's sometimes translated) is helpful. 'Duration' is much more akin to 'length' than just saying 'time'. This allows us to distinguish in language whether we're talking about the dimension, versus talking about a property of the observation. So clocks can be said to measure the duration of a phenomenon, just as rulers measure the length of an object.

To tie this all back to relativity, we can then distinguish between non-relativistic changes that can be applied to objects and phenomena within a given frame of reference (i.e. 'stretching' an object to change its length or width, or causing a clock to run faster or slowing by applying a physical force that affects its mechanical operation - a change to the actual 'duration' of the cycle by which the clock measure) versus what is actually being talked about in relativity, which is that a given frame of reference will have an entirely different geometry to an observer in a frame of reference that is in relative motion at a high enough speed. The length of the objects or duration of the phenomena will not be caused to change at all (relative to observers in that frame) due to the relative motion. They will only appear to change when compared to observations made by observers is a different frame. In this sense, it should at least be understood that relativity postulates something very different from the idea that gravity changes clocks because of a force applied to the mechanics of the clock makes the clock operate differently.

creation
Posts: 929
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 11th, 2020, 2:25 am

Thomyum2 wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 1:39 pm
Steve3007 wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 9:11 am
They are words for quantities that can be represented by terms in mathematical equations that relate to measurable experiences/sensations. But I think you'll still find some people expressing scepticism that a quantity like "strangeness" (a property of quarks), for example, is not just part of the fevered imagination of some physicists, who have wrapped themselves so tightly in their mathematics that they've lost their good old fashioned common sense. I think some people on this site will tell you something like that. Those people probably won't say the same thing about a property like length. Which I think is interesting.
...
But perhaps it's even more interesting that, as you've said, some people have mystical notions about time despite the fact that (unlike strangeness) it's as familiar and everyday a concept as length.
This is one reason I think Henri Bergson's distinction between 'mathematical time' and 'real time', or what he called 'duration' (as it's sometimes translated) is helpful. 'Duration' is much more akin to 'length' than just saying 'time'. This allows us to distinguish in language whether we're talking about the dimension, versus talking about a property of the observation. So clocks can be said to measure the duration of a phenomenon, just as rulers measure the length of an object.

To tie this all back to relativity, we can then distinguish between non-relativistic changes that can be applied to objects and phenomena within a given frame of reference (i.e. 'stretching' an object to change its length or width, or causing a clock to run faster or slowing by applying a physical force that affects its mechanical operation - a change to the actual 'duration' of the cycle by which the clock measure) versus what is actually being talked about in relativity, which is that a given frame of reference will have an entirely different geometry to an observer in a frame of reference that is in relative motion at a high enough speed. The length of the objects or duration of the phenomena will not be caused to change at all (relative to observers in that frame) due to the relative motion. They will only appear to change when compared to observations made by observers is a different frame. In this sense, it should at least be understood that relativity postulates something very different from the idea that gravity changes clocks because of a force applied to the mechanics of the clock makes the clock operate differently.
All of this is what is said to happen, but does it really happen?

1. Clocks are said to run faster or slower by applying a physical force that affects its mechanical operation, that is; change the actual 'duration' of the cycle by which the clock measures.

Verses

2. What is actually being talked about in relativity, which is that a given frame of reference will have entirely different geometry to an observer in a frame of reference that is in relative motion at a high enough speed.

1. What I think will be found, when looked at fully, is that this does not actually happen at all, that is; a change in the actual 'duration' of the 'cycle', by which the clock measures, does not change at all. However, an actual change occurs between a clock moving in one direction relative to clocks moving in different directions. Therefore, an actual change can occur, relative to other clocks, but that change occurs not in the way it is said to happen, nor for the reasons given. The reason a change occurs is because of what the 'cycle' of 'duration' is set in relation to.

2. The length of duration of a 'tick' of a clock does not change relative to an observer in the same frame of reference of that clock. I think we all agree on this. The length of duration of a 'tick' is said to appear different for an observer in a different frame of reference of the frame of reference a clock is in. I think all agree with this. To me, this appearance of change in duration is not as clear as it first appears to be. This is because I do not look at things from just one reference frame. I tend to look at what actually happens and not at what just appears to happen. So, what could appear to happen in another frame of reference from and to one observer in another frame of reference is one thing, but what actually happens is another thing.

Clocks do NOT actually run faster nor slower just because they 'appear' to do so, to some people, from the observation point of being in a different frame of reference. It may be true, that this appearance happens, to those people who are looking from one frame of reference, but the very reason why some people are still searching for answers in Life is because they usually only look at things from only one perspective, or from a very narrowed field of view perspective.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2159
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Terrapin Station » January 11th, 2020, 1:18 pm

creation wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 2:25 am
Thomyum2 wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 1:39 pm


This is one reason I think Henri Bergson's distinction between 'mathematical time' and 'real time', or what he called 'duration' (as it's sometimes translated) is helpful. 'Duration' is much more akin to 'length' than just saying 'time'. This allows us to distinguish in language whether we're talking about the dimension, versus talking about a property of the observation. So clocks can be said to measure the duration of a phenomenon, just as rulers measure the length of an object.

To tie this all back to relativity, we can then distinguish between non-relativistic changes that can be applied to objects and phenomena within a given frame of reference (i.e. 'stretching' an object to change its length or width, or causing a clock to run faster or slowing by applying a physical force that affects its mechanical operation - a change to the actual 'duration' of the cycle by which the clock measure) versus what is actually being talked about in relativity, which is that a given frame of reference will have an entirely different geometry to an observer in a frame of reference that is in relative motion at a high enough speed. The length of the objects or duration of the phenomena will not be caused to change at all (relative to observers in that frame) due to the relative motion. They will only appear to change when compared to observations made by observers is a different frame. In this sense, it should at least be understood that relativity postulates something very different from the idea that gravity changes clocks because of a force applied to the mechanics of the clock makes the clock operate differently.
All of this is what is said to happen, but does it really happen?

1. Clocks are said to run faster or slower by applying a physical force that affects its mechanical operation, that is; change the actual 'duration' of the cycle by which the clock measures.

Verses

2. What is actually being talked about in relativity, which is that a given frame of reference will have entirely different geometry to an observer in a frame of reference that is in relative motion at a high enough speed.

1. What I think will be found, when looked at fully, is that this does not actually happen at all, that is; a change in the actual 'duration' of the 'cycle', by which the clock measures, does not change at all. However, an actual change occurs between a clock moving in one direction relative to clocks moving in different directions. Therefore, an actual change can occur, relative to other clocks, but that change occurs not in the way it is said to happen, nor for the reasons given. The reason a change occurs is because of what the 'cycle' of 'duration' is set in relation to.

2. The length of duration of a 'tick' of a clock does not change relative to an observer in the same frame of reference of that clock. I think we all agree on this. The length of duration of a 'tick' is said to appear different for an observer in a different frame of reference of the frame of reference a clock is in. I think all agree with this. To me, this appearance of change in duration is not as clear as it first appears to be. This is because I do not look at things from just one reference frame. I tend to look at what actually happens and not at what just appears to happen. So, what could appear to happen in another frame of reference from and to one observer in another frame of reference is one thing, but what actually happens is another thing.

Clocks do NOT actually run faster nor slower just because they 'appear' to do so, to some people, from the observation point of being in a different frame of reference. It may be true, that this appearance happens, to those people who are looking from one frame of reference, but the very reason why some people are still searching for answers in Life is because they usually only look at things from only one perspective, or from a very narrowed field of view perspective.
I don't want to give the suggestion that I'm simply towing the standard line re physics and its view of relativity (because that's not my perspective on this--I only agree with the standard view insofar as it agrees with me), but re what actually happens, it's not possible to be reference frame (or "reference point" in my ontology)-free. So what actually happens is always from some reference point (or reference frame if you like).

Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Tamminen » January 11th, 2020, 1:22 pm

Proofs of time dilation using geometry:


1. A space ship travels to a planet 4 light years from the Earth with a constant speed, 80% of light speed. So the trip takes 5 years according to clocks on Earth. We want to know the time it takes according to the traveler's clock.

Let us draw a right triangle with legs a and b, and the hypotenuse c.

a = the time it takes from a photon to travel during the voyage, horizontally in relation to the space ship, and in the reference frame of the space ship. This is what we are asking.
b = the distance traveled = 4 light years.
c = the time it takes from the aforementioned photon to travel during the voyage, in the reference frame of the Earth, ie. according to clocks on Earth = 5 years.

Now we see, using the Pythagorean theorem, that a = 3. So it takes 3 years from the traveler to make the trip, according to the clocks in the space ship.


2. A space ship is accelerating. A photon in launched from its wall, from point A. It reaches the opposite wall after traveling a horizontal distance d in time t. But because of acceleration it hits the opposite wall below the starting point, say at point B. Now the distance AB > d. This is the distance the photon has traveled from the perspective of an inertial reference frame, and therefore also its time of travel is longer than t. So time runs slower in the accelerating reference frame.

The same applies to gravity, because of the equivalence principle. Objects on Earth ground accelerate in relation to free fall, which can be seen as an inertial reference frame. So time runs the slower the stronger the gravity field. And if the field is very strong, like in a black hole, time “stops” altogether, from the outsider's perspective. What travelers in a black hole see when they look out the window, is another question. Nothing should happen to their clocks or anything else inside their space ship, because the ship is in free fall.


All this is pure mathematics, reducible to a couple of premises, like the constancy of light speed and the equivalence principle. This has nothing to do with gravity affecting the physical mechanisms of clocks. Time, as a component of the geometry of spacetime, is a function of relative speed, acceleration and gravity.

creation
Posts: 929
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 11th, 2020, 7:37 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 1:18 pm
creation wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 2:25 am


All of this is what is said to happen, but does it really happen?

1. Clocks are said to run faster or slower by applying a physical force that affects its mechanical operation, that is; change the actual 'duration' of the cycle by which the clock measures.

Verses

2. What is actually being talked about in relativity, which is that a given frame of reference will have entirely different geometry to an observer in a frame of reference that is in relative motion at a high enough speed.

1. What I think will be found, when looked at fully, is that this does not actually happen at all, that is; a change in the actual 'duration' of the 'cycle', by which the clock measures, does not change at all. However, an actual change occurs between a clock moving in one direction relative to clocks moving in different directions. Therefore, an actual change can occur, relative to other clocks, but that change occurs not in the way it is said to happen, nor for the reasons given. The reason a change occurs is because of what the 'cycle' of 'duration' is set in relation to.

2. The length of duration of a 'tick' of a clock does not change relative to an observer in the same frame of reference of that clock. I think we all agree on this. The length of duration of a 'tick' is said to appear different for an observer in a different frame of reference of the frame of reference a clock is in. I think all agree with this. To me, this appearance of change in duration is not as clear as it first appears to be. This is because I do not look at things from just one reference frame. I tend to look at what actually happens and not at what just appears to happen. So, what could appear to happen in another frame of reference from and to one observer in another frame of reference is one thing, but what actually happens is another thing.

Clocks do NOT actually run faster nor slower just because they 'appear' to do so, to some people, from the observation point of being in a different frame of reference. It may be true, that this appearance happens, to those people who are looking from one frame of reference, but the very reason why some people are still searching for answers in Life is because they usually only look at things from only one perspective, or from a very narrowed field of view perspective.
I don't want to give the suggestion that I'm simply towing the standard line re physics and its view of relativity (because that's not my perspective on this--I only agree with the standard view insofar as it agrees with me), but re what actually happens, it's not possible to be reference frame (or "reference point" in my ontology)-free.
If it is not possible to be reference frame, or reference point, free, from your perspective, then that is what it will be.

From your perspective, are you able to look and see from more than one reference point at a time?
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 1:18 pm
So what actually happens is always from some reference point (or reference frame if you like).
That is from 'your' perspective. But I see things differently than you, and most people, do.

As I was saying most people only see things from only one perspective, and obviously seeing things from one reference frame or one reference point only, then they will only have the tinniest point of view from which to see things from. They are obviously then not going to see the big and full picture of all things. Looking from some reference point, then one can only get a small glimpse, or a very narrowed field of view, of the whole and big 'picture'. They will only get a tiny glance of the whole truth of things, and come to conclusions like, "what actually happens is I can always only look or see from some reference point. These people arrive at the conclusion that they can only see from one reference frame at a time only, and this is fine because this is thee truth. So, what actually happens is always from some reference point (or reference frame), but because they have only ever had tiny glimpses of the big picture, or only had a very narrowed field of view to look from, they come to conclusions with and from that very narrowed perspective of things, so unaware to them is because they have arrived at that conclusion from one separate point of view only (or from one individual reference point), they then assume that they cannot look and see from all reference points all at the same time, correct?

And this is why I explained that those ones are still looking for answers. If, from their point of view, their reference point, their frame of reference, or their perspective, they can not yet see the whole and big picture yet, then, as I have been explaining, there is another way to look, which does actually reveal the big and whole picture, which shows them the truth of things.

But as I also say, do not trust me on this, test this for yourself and see if it works or not.

What actually does happen in Life might just be something different than what you currently believe it is now. Unless of course you already do have and know the big and full picture of things, and thus the whole truth, and if you do, then what you are saying is not possible is the absolute truth already.

Do you have, and know, the actual truth of things yet?

If not, then the reason I say I look at and see things differently than just about everyone is because I look and see things from the perspective of ALL, and not from just one individual or separate reference point only.

So, although the truth may well be; 'What actually happens is from 'some' reference point', the truth is that what actually really happens comes from thee one reference point of everything. From this reference point is where thee Truth lays and is found.

creation
Posts: 929
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 11th, 2020, 9:10 pm

Tamminen wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 1:22 pm
Proofs of time dilation using geometry:
Is there some Universal law that states 'geometry' holds the formula to solving this?

Or, are you just using geometry to "justify" some conclusion, which you believe is the conclusion?

Tamminen wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 1:22 pm
1. A space ship travels to a planet 4 light years from the Earth with a constant speed, 80% of light speed. So the trip takes 5 years according to clocks on Earth. We want to know the time it takes according to the traveler's clock.

Let us draw a right triangle with legs a and b, and the hypotenuse c.

a = the time it takes from a photon to travel during the voyage, horizontally in relation to the space ship, and in the reference frame of the space ship. This is what we are asking.
b = the distance traveled = 4 light years.
c = the time it takes from the aforementioned photon to travel during the voyage, in the reference frame of the Earth, ie. according to clocks on Earth = 5 years.

Now we see, using the Pythagorean theorem, that a = 3. So it takes 3 years from the traveler to make the trip, according to the clocks in the space ship.
Just about all of this makes no sense to me.

For example;
I do not know what you are asking in a. Are you asking how long does it take a photon to travel the exact same path that the space ship takes?

Are you also suggesting from a and from c that a photon travels distances differently according to the frame of reference of an observer?

If yes, then this will help me in explaining where the confusion, which has lead up to all of the misconceptions and wrong calculations, may have actually originated from.

You say using pythagorean theorem a = 3, as it takes three years from the traveler to make the trip, according to the clocks in the space ship.

I say using commonsense a = 5, as it takes five years for the traveler to make the trip, which would also be the same as the clock in the space ship.

Just plain old commonsense and very simple mathematics would tell you the space ship cannot travel that distance faster than the speed of light.

The whole point of 'relativity' as been completely taken out of context, and completely lost and misunderstood, to most people.
Tamminen wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 1:22 pm
2. A space ship is accelerating. A photon in launched from its wall, from point A. It reaches the opposite wall after traveling a horizontal distance d in time t. But because of acceleration it hits the opposite wall below the starting point, say at point B. Now the distance AB > d. This is the distance the photon has traveled from the perspective of an inertial reference frame, and therefore also its time of travel is longer than t. So time runs slower in the accelerating reference frame.
But this is not measuring time, nor even measuring what is called time. This example is just used to "justify" and to 'try to' prove what is assumed happens. What actually happens is much different.

A photon bouncing off of two walls is traveling the same distance, and therefore takes the same time to travel that distance, no matter if the two walls are fixed to planet earth or traveling in a space ship away from earth at any speed.

Acceleration or constant speed as no altering effect on this.

Some people 'try to' use mathematics and/or examples to "justify" their already held assumptions, views, beliefs, et cetera.

This just shows the power of belief at work here.

A lot of the formulas put forward as "justifications" for things could in fact be an absolute load of rubbish. Obviously, using symbols, which most human beings on the planet have absolutely no idea what they are, let alone what they refer to, does not prove anything at all. In fact it could be a way to hide the actual truth of things, and just be a way to pretend that some people know something, which truthfully they may not have any clue at all about. Using unknown symbols and unknown formulas and say that this proves this or that, after all, could just be a way one wanting to express that one's own beliefs as being the absolute truth. Some people will 'try' absolutely anything to prove and show that what they believe is true, is true. But because those unknown symbols appear to show that those people are "smart", then to some other people this then means that "they must be smart so they must know what they are talking about". But obviously if someone cannot explain something in very simple terms, then they may not simply know that thing at all themselves. Making things appear complex and hard, in order so that do not have explain things is, to me, a sign of insecurity and fear, and certainly not a sign of them actually knowing at thing at all.

To me, absolutely everything in Life, including ALL of Life, Itself, is just, simple and easy. There is absolutely nothing hard nor complex and Life and the Universe, Itself.
Tamminen wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 1:22 pm
The same applies to gravity, because of the equivalence principle. Objects on Earth ground accelerate in relation to free fall, which can be seen as an inertial reference frame. So time runs the slower the stronger the gravity field. And if the field is very strong, like in a black hole, time “stops” altogether, from the outsider's perspective.
Yes we have heard this same old stuff many times. We know that this is what some people say what you believe is true, because you have been told it is true. But just continually saying things does not make them true, nor real.

If anyone wants to say that 'time' "stops", then I just ask them what is 'time' exactly, which could have the ability to "stop", "run faster", and/or "run slower"?

When that answer is provided, which is sufficient, then we can start looking at and discussing how something called "time" could actually speed up, slow down, and/or stop, but until then all you are doing is just copying and repeating what you have read and heard so far, and which you believe is true, correct?
Tamminen wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 1:22 pm
What travelers in a black hole see when they look out the window, is another question. Nothing should happen to their clocks or anything else inside their space ship, because the ship is in free fall.
What does 'free fall' actually mean to you?
Tamminen wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 1:22 pm
All this is pure mathematics, reducible to a couple of premises, like the constancy of light speed and the equivalence principle. This has nothing to do with gravity affecting the physical mechanisms of clocks. Time, as a component of the geometry of spacetime, is a function of relative speed, acceleration and gravity.
If you want to use pure mathematics, then how long does light take to travel a distance of 4 light years?

If really does not get much simpler and easier than that.

User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 271
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by NickGaspar » January 11th, 2020, 9:35 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 1:18 pm
creation wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 2:25 am
"philosophy" without being informed by our current epistemology and science is NOT philosophy.
We can observe time dilation by using precise mechanisms (atomic clocks) to detect the changes in frequencies of matter it self.
What creation claims is a product of pseudo philosophy. His claims ignore scientific consensus, a clear definition and direct measurements.
Here are links about our current epistemology on the subject of time dilation.
Notice that an atomic clock is based on the measurement of the natural "pace keeper" or "clock" of the fundamental particles of matter.

here is the actual publication.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5999/1630
here is the articles some day after the publication
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2 ... -your-feet
here is one of our latest measurements.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... y-of-time/

creation
Posts: 929
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 11th, 2020, 10:52 pm

NickGaspar wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 9:35 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 1:18 pm
creation wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 2:25 am
"philosophy" without being informed by our current epistemology and science is NOT philosophy.
We can observe time dilation by using precise mechanisms (atomic clocks) to detect the changes in frequencies of matter it self.
What creation claims is a product of pseudo philosophy. His claims ignore scientific consensus, a clear definition and direct measurements.
Here are links about our current epistemology on the subject of time dilation.
Your current epistemology on the subject of time dilation is not necessarily absolutely true, right, nor correct, in these times. Just like the current epistemology on the subject of earth being the center of the Universe was not necessarily absolutely true, right, not correct, in those times.

Only when things are looked at, again, from a truly open perspective this time, does the actual truth come to light.

You can remain steadfast in your belief, like human beings with the earth being the center of the Universe conclusion were also, or you can look at what I am saying and challenge me on what I say and claim, or just ask me clarifying questions if you like. But just telling me and others that what I claim is a product of "pseudo philosophy" is jut like the behavior of those who believed that the earth was at center of the Universe, when they 'tried to' ridicule and discredit those who said otherwise.
NickGaspar wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 9:35 pm
Notice that an atomic clock is based on the measurement of the natural "pace keeper" or "clock" of the fundamental particles of matter.
LOL if you say so.

Now tell me what happens with an atomic clock when it travels a distance of say four light years at a speed of 99% of the speed of light, for the whole distance. How much does that clock change by?

If at the start of that trip that clock is set to zero, then what would it read after a distance of four light years?
NickGaspar wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 9:35 pm
here is the actual publication.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5999/1630
here is the articles some day after the publication
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2 ... -your-feet
here is one of our latest measurements.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... y-of-time/
Current so called "knowledge" does not mean that it is correct.

For example, if I was telling you, and others, if we existed about 400 years ago, that the sun does not revolve around the earth, then you, or others, could have sent me as many transcripts of ALL of the current so called "knowledge" that you like, but once again that does not mean that it is correct.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 6967
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 12th, 2020, 6:30 am

Thomyum2 wrote:This is one reason I think Henri Bergson's distinction between 'mathematical time' and 'real time', or what he called 'duration' (as it's sometimes translated) is helpful. 'Duration' is much more akin to 'length' than just saying 'time'. This allows us to distinguish in language whether we're talking about the dimension, versus talking about a property of the observation. So clocks can be said to measure the duration of a phenomenon, just as rulers measure the length of an object.
Thank you for bringing my attention to Henri Bergson. I wasn't familiar with him so naturally turned to Wikipedia as a first point of reference. I read there (in a brief synopsis) that he had a bit of a debate with Einstein about Relativity, as others have done. I'll look into it a bit more. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have both been the subject of many philosophical arguments and objections and Einstein, of course, famously had a major philosophical objection himself to Quantum Mechanics.

From you brief description of Bergson's distinction between "mathematical time" and "real time" it sounds like another version of the "map" and "territory" distinction. So it boils down to a metaphysical argument, played out on this forum many times before (and going back to Plato's concept of Forms), as to whether it's meaningful to talk of the territory existing in the absence of any form of map.
To tie this all back to relativity, we can then distinguish between non-relativistic changes that can be applied to objects and phenomena within a given frame of reference (i.e. 'stretching' an object to change its length or width, or causing a clock to run faster or slowing by applying a physical force that affects its mechanical operation - a change to the actual 'duration' of the cycle by which the clock measure)...
Yes, these would be ways of changing the length of a ruler or the ticking rate of a clock which have nothing whatever to do with Relativity. For example, I can change the ticking rate of my clock by smashing it to pieces. It will then stop ticking. Obviously this fact has no bearing, one way or the other, on the subject of Relativity.
...versus what is actually being talked about in relativity, which is that a given frame of reference will have an entirely different geometry to an observer in a frame of reference that is in relative motion at a high enough speed.
Or at least, using the branch of mathematics called Geometry is one way in which we can create a model that accurately describes and predicts observations between reference frames that are moving relative to each other at speeds that are a large fraction of the speed of light for a given measurement tolerance/accuracy/error. The more accurate our measurements, the smaller a fraction of the speed of light is required.
The length of the objects or duration of the phenomena will not be caused to change at all (relative to observers in that frame) due to the relative motion. They will only appear to change when compared to observations made by observers is a different frame.
This is where maps and territories often get discussed. All measurements of time and distance are made by comparing one clock with another or one ruler with another. So, clearly no matter how fast I travel relative to someone else, my clock ticks at the same rate and my ruler stays the same length as measured by me. This is obvious because all measurements I make are made by comparing. So stating that my clock stays ticking at the same rate, as measured by me, is simply saying my clock ticks at the same rate that my clock ticks. Obviously, tautologically, true.

But the problem usually arises when people start asking things like: "But what rate are clocks really ticking at? Other clicks might appear to be clicking slowly, but are they really?". My view is that the question about "really" here (the territory) has no meaning in the absence of references to observations (the map). In my view, objective propositions and questions are meaningful if they can be tested/answered by a possible observation of by a consideration of the logical form of the language in which they are expressed.
In this sense, it should at least be understood that relativity postulates something very different from the idea that gravity changes clocks because of a force applied to the mechanics of the clock makes the clock operate differently.
As I said before in a relatively recent post, if people think that then they haven't started to discuss Relativity at all yet. They've started to discuss the mechanics of clocks (an interesting subject, no doubt, but not the subject in hand). They've fundamentally misunderstood what Relativity is about. Obviously we all misunderstand, or don't understand, all kinds of things. But, even so, as soon as one starts suggesting that people haven't understood some particular thing they often take umbridge and assume they're being told that they're stupid. Obviously they're not being told that. They're being told the simple fact that in order to critique something one needs to first have some idea of what that something says. And if they say things that appear to indicate that they don't, then they need to say other things to indicate that they do (or are willing to look into it) before saying things along the lines of "It's all nonsense! I have the truth! Those scientists are all too wrapped up in their theories to see how illogical they are, but I can see it!" etc etc.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 6967
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 12th, 2020, 7:17 am

If you want to use pure mathematics, then how long does light take to travel a distance of 4 light years?
As measured by what?

User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 271
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by NickGaspar » January 12th, 2020, 8:10 am

creation wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 10:52 pm
NickGaspar wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 9:35 pm
Your current epistemology on the subject of time dilation is not necessarily absolutely true, right, nor correct, in these times. Just like the current epistemology on the subject of earth being the center of the Universe was not necessarily absolutely true, right, not correct, in those times.
Nobody talks about ABSOLUTE truth, right etc. Absolute concepts are red herrings in our world.
A knowledge claim is accepted as truth as long as it is in agreement with CURRENT facts.
Time dilatation is true because it is based on repeatable observable observations since 1938.
The time to reject a knowledge claim is only after it is empirical verified, not a second sooner.
Just because different assumptions were based on superficial observations that doesn't justify to assume the same for modern systematic observations.
And again knowledge and truth are ALWAYS based on the evaluation and interpretation of CURRENT FACTS.
right or wrong, those are what we got and those are what define a belief rational or not.
Only when things are looked at, again, from a truly open perspective this time, does the actual truth come to light.
-that is a vague deepity. Truth is an evaluation term for claims which are in direct agreement with current facts. In order for us to be more sure for the true value of a claim, we need to collect more facts and put the framework constantly in to the test. This is what systematically is done by science.
You can remain steadfast in your belief, like human beings with the earth being the center of the Universe conclusion were also, or you can look at what I am saying and challenge me on what I say and claim, or just ask me clarifying questions if you like. But just telling me and others that what I claim is a product of "pseudo philosophy" is jut like the behavior of those who believed that the earth was at center of the Universe, when they 'tried to' ridicule and discredit those who said otherwise.
-its not a matter of belief. Philosophy science and logic are based on our current available facts, independently from whether we don't currently know if they are the final facts relevant to the phenomenon for sure. So ignoring the knowledge which is based on that facts or making argument from ignorance and red herring (because we don't know the absolute truth value) is an irrational pseudo philosophical behavior. .

Again read the actual experiments which verified the phenomenon of time dilation.
Now tell me what happens with an atomic clock when it travels a distance of say four light years at a speed of 99% of the speed of light, for the whole distance. How much does that clock change by?
Now read the links I posted. We observe time dilation on the surface of the earth through two stationary atomic clocks.The fact that you are keep promoting an ideology by ignoring the scientific methodology supportive of the framework, that is by definition a pseudo philosophical practice.
Current so called "knowledge" does not mean that it is correct.
-again wishing for our current knowledge to be false is a fallacious, pseudo philosophical belief.
All scientific knowledge is Tentative, you are not saying anything new. but this is all we get to work on.
As long as we have observations, meaningful explanations, accurate predictions and technical applications, the falsification process has a lot work to do.
And we are not addressing what could be possible or not, We are only addressing your irrational act to use this possibility as an excuse to hold on to your unjustified beliefs.
For example, if I was telling you, and others, if we existed about 400 years ago, that the sun does not revolve around the earth, then you, or others, could have sent me as many transcripts of ALL of the current so called "knowledge" that you like, but once again that does not mean that it is correct.
-You repeated this fallacious argument. We have to deal with the tentative nature of scientific knowledge, but that doesn't justify your practice to ignore our current observations.

creation
Posts: 929
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 12th, 2020, 9:12 am

Steve3007 wrote:
January 12th, 2020, 7:17 am
If you want to use pure mathematics, then how long does light take to travel a distance of 4 light years?
As measured by what?
This is where you have fallen into the trap of thinking that there is more than one way to look at and answer this. A direct result of the teaching of 'relativity'.

For example, how long does light take to get from the sun to the earth?

Answer that, then I will explain how to find the answer to my previous question.

Post Reply