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: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 14th, 2020, 9:37 am

NickGaspar wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 7:39 am
creation wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 6:16 am


Yes we are.

I ask you clarifying questions. You, once again, prove you are incapable to answer.

Why is it the ones who insist the predictions of relativity have already been verified correct are the same ones who are incapable of answering my questions? Does the obvious fact that if they did answer my questions honestly, then that would show that what they believe is correct is not correct at all?
If you are unable to address my question (when did you stop beating your wife), its because it shares the same "qualities" with your question.
What are you on about now?

Are you aware that I have to read something, BEFORE I am able to respond to it?

I have only just read your reply, and so have just now responded to it.

In case you are unaware I try to read all the messages in order as they appear and do not just concentrate on yours first, nor yours only.
NickGaspar wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 7:39 am
As Sculptor1 pointed out to you, some questions are just silly.
If that is what you two want to BELIEVE is true, then so be it.

But believing and expressing that, is one way people can deceive themselves, and/or "justify" to themselves not to answer questions, which if they did answer openly and honestly would prove that their other beliefs could actually be wrong and/or incorrect.

You and others not answering my obviously just very simple and very straightforward completely open unassuming clarifying questions, is perfectly fine with me.

Not answering can sometimes actually say and reveal more than if you did.
NickGaspar wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 7:39 am
Those sentences you presented with a question mark are not questions.
LOL
NickGaspar wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 7:39 am
They are fallacious statements "formed" to look as such
LOL
LOL

More attempts at "justifying" for not answering.

Anyone can see anything into things, which are just NOT there. You are very nicely proving this to be absolutely true.

Also, another flaw in human beings is, they see in others what they themselves are like, and so assume that others do what they, themselves, do.
NickGaspar wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 7:39 am
Now why is so important for you to reject or cherry pick from our scientific understanding of time and subscribe to an unfounded one?
To show just how strong BELIEFS are within the human psyche. You, and others, are fulfilling this perfectly.

I also want to reveal how it is assumptions and beliefs, themselves, which is why human beings are so far behind in advancements, compared to what will be soon be achieved, when the belief-system is fully recognized, and understood.

By the way, me revealing the faults and flaws in the current knowledge, in the times of when this is written, is that important really as they will become as clearly obvious to them, as they are to me now, when they learn to look at and see things from a much better and clear way, which is what will be learned and understood when the belief-system, and how the Mind and the brain, actual work.

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 14th, 2020, 9:47 am

Steve3007 wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:29 am
creation wrote:Was human beings only living in the 'present', like all animals do, and not having some made up construct of 'time' not obviously already KNOWN?

No one has to look to far at all to observe this happening and SEE this obvious fact...

...This is not "boggling" at all. If the WHOLE is look at and seen on the continuum, instead of looking from the very small "world" view, then the reasons WHY ALL human beings come up with and see things differently is really rather very obvious.
It may be obvious to you, but be patient with us, your slow-witted pupils. We are not as far-sighted as you. We do not have your unique ability to see what is true, right, and correct.
But you do have the 'unique ability'. That ability never goes. That ability just gets suppressed, prevented and/or blocked.

In fact everyone has and uses this so called 'unique ability' only from birth, but sadly this ability diminishes over time due to specific reasons.

To regain and be able to use this 'unique ability' to its full capacity again just requires learning.

Also, this 'unique ability' is the exact same and equal with ALL human beings. This ability is only 'unique' to human beings.

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 14th, 2020, 10:00 am

NickGaspar wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:34 am
creation wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 7:47 am
NickGaspar wrote:
January 13th, 2020, 1:59 pm

I guess we are dealing with sophistry as a protective mechanism for a pseudo philosophical view. Interesting!
I am addressing "how and what" questions while you are demanding answers for "why" questions!
OBVIOUSLY, asking you WHERE and WHAT something is exactly, is NOT a "why" question.
NickGaspar wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:34 am
Asking "why" physical phenomena act the way they do is a pseudo philosophical practice.
i.e "Why an exited electron releases "light" while returning to his initial state" ?The answer to this question is "Because it does".
Assuming unjustified reasons is just an irrational practice.
ASSUMING I have asked a "why" question is completely and utterly irrational.

For you to "see" things, which are NOT there, reveals and shows more power of believing and assuming.
NickGaspar wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:34 am
I understand that this belief must be really important for you then.
SEE, how this person is completely incapable of see and understanding what I actually write, but only "sees" what their already held beliefs and assumptions tell them to "see".

No matter how many times I tell this person that I do have 'beliefs' they do not see this and this just does not register in a brain that believes otherwise.

Very shortly this person will really SHOW just how absolutely powerful belief really is.

NickGaspar wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:34 am
I get it, worldviews are generally more important for people than knowledge is .
Facts that shake worldviews also tend to rise people's epistemic anxiety.
I have asked you previously; What does the word 'facts' mean to you?

Once again, you never answered this clarifying question so that I could be understand you.

You use the word "facts" as though it is something that can be changed. I have explained why this is incorrect. But since you cannot or will not clarify, then I just let you be.
NickGaspar wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:34 am
Either way , they get to enjoy the fruits of knowledge through technology but without having to surrender their beliefs(cognitive dissonance).
Remember who is the one with beliefs here.

NickGaspar wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:34 am
Well, It was nice talking to you again. Take care.
How 'nice' was it REALLY?

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 14th, 2020, 11:13 am

RJG wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
RJG wrote:Time does not "cause" motion, any more than Space causes matter. Motion is caused by interacting matter. Time is just the substrate; i.e. the place where motion occurs.
creation wrote:So, time, the dimension, is the place where motion occurs. But, if motion is caused by interacting matter, then the place where motion, or interacting matter, occurs is just the Universe, Itself, correct?
Yes, the 4D universe. The 4D universe is where 3D objects interact (and motion occurs).

Does anyone here in this thread not know this, or dispute this?
RJG wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
RJG wrote:I mean Motion is only possible because of Time in the same respect that Matter is only possible because of Space.
creation wrote:I am still not understanding where nor what this dimension is, which is Time, and which motion is not possible without.
If you can understand 3D space, then you can understand 4D space (i.e. spacetime). -- Can you imagine the dimensions of 3D space? If so, now add a 4th axis which allows a new spatial direction for this 3D space and the material (matter) within it.
I can imagine a trillion dimensions, if we just want to add another axis on to the preceding ones, and give them a name.

But, to me, the word 'time' is just the name or label some people have placed onto the reaction process of 'change', itself.

RJG wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
RJG wrote:Time is not an "activity". Time is just a spatial Dimension; a 'place' for activity (i.e. the interaction of matter) to happen.
creation wrote:Well the Universe, Itself, is a place, or a spatial dimension, for the interaction of matter to happen, correct?
The Universe is formed/structured by 4 spatial dimensions. It is the place where 3D objects move. Without the 4th axis, there could be no movement of 3D objects.
Is it possible that the constant-change, itself, which happens eternally by the way, is the 4th "spatial dimension" that some people just refer to as 'time'?

RJG wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
RJG wrote:Look at it this way, without the 3 dimensions of space there would be no 'where'; no 'place' for matter to exist. And without Time (the 4th dimension) there would be no 'where'; no 'place' for matter to interact (move/motion).
creation wrote:But, to me, space is literally the place where matter is able to move and interact. Because of space, matter is able to freely move.
3D Matter is only "free to move" in 4D Space.
Is there anything else other than 3 dimensional matter? For example, is there 4 or 2 dimensional matter?
RJG wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
Without a 'means' to move; or a pathway (i.e. the "dimension of Time") there could be no movement whatsoever. Nothing can move or happen (or occur) in a 'timeless' state.
If there was no change, then yes nothing can move nor happen. Things would be in a 'changeless' state. But as there has been an eternal constant state of change, then movement has always happened. But, to me, this constant state of change happens because both space and matter have always co-existed. Therefore, because they BOTH have co-existed forever, then so to has change or movement existed forever, and it is just this actual 'change', which is just what some people refer to, and call, "time".

What they call "time" and 'change' is just the same interchangeable thing, being, what I call, labeled incorrectly with one of those words.

But you, and others, are free to call absolutely anything by absolutely any made up name or label.

(By the way, these dimensions are not real existing things, but we are an extremely way off from looking into and discussing this. But, for now, I will use these words to better grasp what you see 'time' is.)

RJG wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
RJG wrote:Space (3D Space) only allows the existence of matter. Spacetime (4D Space) allows motion of matter (of 3D objects).
creation wrote:To me matter can exist without space.
This is not logically possible.
Maybe it is. But we will have to wait and see.
RJG wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
Firstly, matter itself is formed of 3D Space.
What do you mean by this?

To me, matter is a physical thing, which shape and form is formed by its own self, which is not space, but is physical matter.

To me space is just the distance between or around matter, but is not matter itself.

But do not get me wrong. I do understand the perspective from where you are coming from.
RJG wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
Matter without dimensions is not matter, it is nothing.
If, as you say, matter is formed of 3 dimensional space, would you also say that space is formed of or by matter?

Because if there was absolutely no matter, then there would only be space, and space without matter is literally nothing at all.

By the way if it is logically possible to have space without matter, then could it also be logically possible to have matter without space?

If no, then okay.

If yes, then although to me it is logically possible. A Universe, or an infinite expanse of infinitely compressed matter, without any space at all, would just be an absolutely worthless and useless thing or concept. If either there was just space or just matter, and nothing else, then there could not be absolutely anything to even conceive of this type of Universe, so the idea of either existing is, to me, logically possible. But just having the ability to imagine that either one of them could be logically possible means that either could NEVER actually exist.

For a species to have the ability to imagine means that BOTH space AND matter have always co-existed HERE and NOW eternally.
RJG wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
Secondly, if there is no 'place' for this matter to exist, there is no existence. For matter to exist, it must exist some-'where'. If it exists no-where, then it does not exist.
I do not think this needs to be said, nor explained.

The 'place' and the 'where' is just the infinite Universe, Itself, which is HERE (NOW).

RJG wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
creation wrote:But matter cannot move and interact without space.
Correct, ...without 4D Space.

Remember my definition of 'time' is completely different than anyone else here.

And, my definition, as far as I am away, is also completely different than everyone else here.

What you are calling 4D space here now. I would just say is the Universe, Itself, (3 dimension, for now, if you like) and 'change', its self, (your other dimension which you say is "time".

So, although I know what you are saying and getting at, I just want to make known that I know them by other names and words.
RJG wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
creation wrote:Matter moving, and interacting, is just motion, or change.
Correct. But for matter to move/interact, it must have a means (pathway) to do so -- The dimension of Time is that pathway. Without Time, nothing happens/occurs.
I understand what you are saying and meaning.

But for me to explain what I observe and see, so that it the Truth can be clearly seen, to me, words have to have very specific meanings and definitions. Otherwise, what I have to say will just end up on the scrapheap of confusion where just about all views are in the days of when this is being written.

To me, to say that matter cannot move without 'time' is to suggest that 'time' was HERE before matter or motion was.

And, for matter to move/interact, to me, there only needs to be a 'space', or a relatively free of matter distance, to move, so that matter could interact with it's self, or, in other words, other matter.

It could be just as easily argued that for there to be time, then matter has to move/interact, so matter, or motion, was HERE before time. Or, it could be very easily argued that both 'time' and 'change' are the exact same thing because without one you could not have the other.

To me, 'time' and 'change' could be synonymous with each other, that is; if they were obviously not two different words. If there are two different words, then they might as well have two different meanings. Otherwise they would just be the EXACT SAME thing, and so two different words would not be needed at all.

RJG wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
creation wrote:The measuring of the duration of this change is just what the word 'time' describes.
That's just the man-made relative 'measurement of objects' that is being confused and conflated as Time itself (the dimension), and is the source of errors/confusion here.
But it is NOT the human-made relative 'measurement of objects'. When a measurement is made of the duration between say two different events, that that is what is referred to as 'time', from my perspective.

The 'measurement of objects' is done to obtain the size of them. (To obtain the 3 dimensions OF an object, if you like?).

The 'measurement of the space between objects' is done to obtain the distance between them. (To obtain the 1 dimension between two objects or to obtain the 3 dimensions of three or more objects, if they are not on the same plane, if you like?)

The 'measurement of the duration between a change in objects' is done to obtain the so called 'time', or to obtain the 'time it takes' to get from one particular point to another point, from one event to another event, or from one shape and form of an object to another shape and form of the same object. (To obtain the 1 dimension of motion, change, or movement, if you like?)
RJG wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am
That is why I posted these multiple interpretations that are being falsely conflated as one another:

1. Time (the dimension itself)
2. The Measurement of Time
3. The Measurement of Objects

I do not conflate these.

Although there is actually NO separation at all anywhere, I like to keep and use all ideas, information, texts, words, definitions, and meanings completely separate so as to not keep the confusion in human beings understanding and knowledge continuing.
RJG wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 8:59 am

Again, if you can conceptualize 3D Space, then you can conceptualize 4D Space (aka Spacetime).
To me, you are just saying that 'change', itself, is the 4th dimension, which is what lots of people just call 'time', itself.

I was just trying to get you to clearly spell out more what the 4th dimension, to you, was.

creation
Posts: 1098
Joined: November 22nd, 2019, 10:39 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by creation » January 14th, 2020, 11:17 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 9:21 am
creation wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 6:18 am


I did not write that.

And I cannot find an edit button in this forum.
I thought it was weird you were repeating that.

Yeah, it's frustrating that we can't edit posts once we hit "submit," especially because I tend to be a typo king . . . and that's not helped by often posting from my kindle, where the autocorrect often makes inexplicable changes. (But I keep it on because overall it helps me type on touchscreen keyboards.)
Would anyone here know if it would be such a difficult thing to just add an edit option?

Or, is there some reason maybe we are not allowed to edit? Could there be a reason why anyone would not want us to edit our mistakes?

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 8003
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 14th, 2020, 12:28 pm

In a previous version of this website, it was possible for all posters to edit their posts. In this most recent version it is my understanding that only moderators can edit their posts. I do not know why. As far as I'm aware, that can't be changed in this version of the website.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 8003
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Steve3007 » January 14th, 2020, 1:13 pm

In this and related topics, numerous incorrect or muddled assertions have been made as to what "science" says (where "science" in this context means the Special and General Theories of Relativity). Therefore numerous straw-men have been attacked and held up as alleged evidence of various propositions, such that scientists don't understand logic, science is illogical, people who believe it worship it, etc. etc.

I'd like to deal with just one of those assertions (for now) here. It is this:

"According to Science, Time "stops" at the speed of Light."

Science does not say this.

---

This is a non-exhaustive account of what the Special Theory of Relativity actually predicts about observers with non-zero mass moving at constant velocity relative to each other.


First we make it clear that even if one disputes that time is what is measured by a clock, hopefully we can agree on the following:

1. It is possible to look at other observers.

2. When we look at them we do so by observing light emitted or reflected from them.

3. It is possible to look at clocks and see them ticking.

4. When we look at a clock we do so by observing light emitted or reflected from that clock.

5. It is possible for an observer to carry a clock and look at it. That can be called a "local clock". (Anything that is stationary with respect to an observer can be referred to as "local" to that observer.)

6. When looking at a local clock we can arrange things such that the time taken for light to reach us from our local clock is negligible, compared to non-local clocks, and can therefore be regarded as zero.

7. When we refer to a "clock" we can be using the word in the most general possible sense to mean any process that changes in such a way that it marks the passage of time. For this thought experiment, it needs to be a process that can be duplicated for other observers. i.e. all observers need to be able to carry similar clocks that can, when they are local to each other, be synchronised such that they tick at the same rate in those circumstances.

8. The accuracy of any given type of clock obviously dictates the tolerance/error in any measurements we take. So, for example, the ageing process of a human being is (compared to, say, a wristwatch) an extremely inaccurate form of clock. But this doesn't change the principle of what is being discussed. It just means that any measured tick-rate differences would have to be correspondingly large in order to be admissible.

9. We can assume that all clocks continue to function in the same way indefinitely. i.e. we are not concerned with clocks breaking down or changing their tick rates due to mechanical reasons.

---

Given those clarifications of terminology and setup, this is what is predicted by SR:

As two observers recede from each other at constant velocity, each can look at their own clock and compare it to their view of the other's clock. Each sees the other's clock ticking more slowly than their own. If they move towards each other at constant velocity, each sees the other's clock ticking faster than their own. Obviously (tautologically), in both cases, each sees their own clock ticking at the same rate as their own clock. So, regardless of their velocity relative to the other observer (or relative to anything else) they see all of their local clocks ticking at the same rate as each other. More generally: there are no local measurements that they can perform which will tell them anything at all about non-local observers or their clocks, or how those non-local observers are moving relative to them.

The faster the relative velocities, the more extreme the effect. As relative velocity tends towards the speed of light, each sees the other clock's tick rate tend towards stopped.

This is sometimes referred to as the Relativistic Doppler Effect.

If each observer makes observations of the other to determine the other's spatial dimensions, each will observe the other to be shortened in the direction of motion.



A specific example of this phenomenon, with numerical measurements given, can be seen here:

viewtopic.php?p=321015#p321015

That example goes on to make the distinction between what is observed directly and what might be calculated, by each observer, from those observations. It also briefly mentions the treatment of this problem in General Relativity (as opposed to Special Relativity.)

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 14th, 2020, 1:43 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 6:35 am
creation wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 6:16 am


Yes we are.

I ask you clarifying questions. You, once again, prove you are incapable to answer.

Why is it the ones who insist the predictions of relativity have already been verified correct are the same ones who are incapable of answering my questions? Does the obvious fact that if they did answer my questions honestly, then that would show that what they believe is correct is not correct at all?
No.
I think it is because they are just fed up with your silly questions.
Relativity is well established. Next time you use your sat-nav, you unknowingly rely on Einstein's theory.
This thread has become a portal for new age ideologies.
I bet most of them reject more than one theory.

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 14th, 2020, 2:22 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 1:13 pm
In this and related topics, numerous incorrect or muddled assertions have been made as to what "science" says (where "science" in this context means the Special and General Theories of Relativity). Therefore numerous straw-men have been attacked and held up as alleged evidence of various propositions, such that scientists don't understand logic, science is illogical, people who believe it worship it, etc. etc.

I'd like to deal with just one of those assertions (for now) here. It is this:

"According to Science, Time "stops" at the speed of Light."

Science does not say this.

---

This is a non-exhaustive account of what the Special Theory of Relativity actually predicts about observers with non-zero mass moving at constant velocity relative to each other.


First we make it clear that even if one disputes that time is what is measured by a clock, hopefully we can agree on the following:

1. It is possible to look at other observers.

2. When we look at them we do so by observing light emitted or reflected from them.

3. It is possible to look at clocks and see them ticking.

4. When we look at a clock we do so by observing light emitted or reflected from that clock.

5. It is possible for an observer to carry a clock and look at it. That can be called a "local clock". (Anything that is stationary with respect to an observer can be referred to as "local" to that observer.)

6. When looking at a local clock we can arrange things such that the time taken for light to reach us from our local clock is negligible, compared to non-local clocks, and can therefore be regarded as zero.

7. When we refer to a "clock" we can be using the word in the most general possible sense to mean any process that changes in such a way that it marks the passage of time. For this thought experiment, it needs to be a process that can be duplicated for other observers. i.e. all observers need to be able to carry similar clocks that can, when they are local to each other, be synchronised such that they tick at the same rate in those circumstances.

8. The accuracy of any given type of clock obviously dictates the tolerance/error in any measurements we take. So, for example, the ageing process of a human being is (compared to, say, a wristwatch) an extremely inaccurate form of clock. But this doesn't change the principle of what is being discussed. It just means that any measured tick-rate differences would have to be correspondingly large in order to be admissible.

9. We can assume that all clocks continue to function in the same way indefinitely. i.e. we are not concerned with clocks breaking down or changing their tick rates due to mechanical reasons.

---

Given those clarifications of terminology and setup, this is what is predicted by SR:

As two observers recede from each other at constant velocity, each can look at their own clock and compare it to their view of the other's clock. Each sees the other's clock ticking more slowly than their own. If they move towards each other at constant velocity, each sees the other's clock ticking faster than their own. Obviously (tautologically), in both cases, each sees their own clock ticking at the same rate as their own clock. So, regardless of their velocity relative to the other observer (or relative to anything else) they see all of their local clocks ticking at the same rate as each other. More generally: there are no local measurements that they can perform which will tell them anything at all about non-local observers or their clocks, or how those non-local observers are moving relative to them.

The faster the relative velocities, the more extreme the effect. As relative velocity tends towards the speed of light, each sees the other clock's tick rate tend towards stopped.

This is sometimes referred to as the Relativistic Doppler Effect.

If each observer makes observations of the other to determine the other's spatial dimensions, each will observe the other to be shortened in the direction of motion.



A specific example of this phenomenon, with numerical measurements given, can be seen here:

viewtopic.php?p=321015#p321015

That example goes on to make the distinction between what is observed directly and what might be calculated, by each observer, from those observations. It also briefly mentions the treatment of this problem in General Relativity (as opposed to Special Relativity.)
Your clarification is useful only for those who respect facts and reasoning. IF they didn't use logic and facts to make those claims , this list will have zero impact on their beliefs.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2619
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Sculptor1 » January 14th, 2020, 2:24 pm

creation wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 9:01 am
Sculptor1 wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 6:35 am


No.
Just like that. No questioning, no wondering, no considering. The answer is just a flat out "No".

If you say so, then it must be true, correct?
Sculptor1 wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 6:35 am
I think it is because they are just fed up with your silly questions.
Be as fed as wanted to be.

The more my questions are dismissed and rejected here. The more evidence and proof I am gaining and obtaining for my real purpose here.
Sculptor1 wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 6:35 am
Relativity is well established. Next time you use your sat-nav, you unknowingly rely on Einstein's theory.
Here we go again. Is this ALL anyone has, who believes the current knowledge is correct?

Instead of answering my questions, they feed me with the same over and over again. And, assuming "unknowingly" just makes this even more hilarious.

Again, not one mention of what I have said in relation to the obvious fact that the results of the hafele-keating experiment oppose einstein's theory and predictions.

Of course 'relativity' is well established. I am the very first one to recognize and say this. What you and others do not recognize is what I am saying and meaning in 'relation' to this.

Every time anyone refuses to answer my questions, then they are confirming what I have predicted. The results are becoming clearer and verified all the time in this experiment.
You've had plenty of evidence directed towards you, and you have countered with NOTHING.
So, yes, people are fed up with you being silly.
You can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts.
What you believe is meaningless, without backup, and you have none.

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

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Tamminen » January 14th, 2020, 2:39 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 1:13 pm
As two observers recede from each other at constant velocity, each can look at their own clock and compare it to their view of the other's clock. Each sees the other's clock ticking more slowly than their own. If they move towards each other at constant velocity, each sees the other's clock ticking faster than their own. Obviously (tautologically), in both cases, each sees their own clock ticking at the same rate as their own clock. So, regardless of their velocity relative to the other observer (or relative to anything else) they see all of their local clocks ticking at the same rate as each other. More generally: there are no local measurements that they can perform which will tell them anything at all about non-local observers or their clocks, or how those non-local observers are moving relative to them.
To avoid confusion, this is indeed the relativistic Doppler effect, but not time dilation. Time dilation is the same whether those two observers recede or approach if their relative velocity is the same, which can be seen in my geometrical proof a few posts ago. Just turn the triangle upside down. I also suggest that @creation takes a good look at that proof to get an answer to the question of how one can make a 5 year trip in 3 years. Needs some insight into the principle of relativity though. And remember the constancy of light speed.

But the real twin paradox is that both twins get younger than the other twin whether they are receding or approaching. This may look a bit embarrassing to someone.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 2001
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by RJG » January 14th, 2020, 3:31 pm

RJG wrote:Motion is only possible because of Time in the same respect that Matter is only possible because of Space.
******
creation wrote:I am still not understanding where nor what this dimension is, which is Time, and which motion is not possible without.
creation wrote:I can imagine a trillion dimensions, if we just want to add another axis on to the preceding ones, and give them a name.
To address these comments, as well as many others, refer to the following logic which proves my point:
  • P1. From a geometric perspective:
    • A 0D "point" cannot move/change without a 1st dimension.
      A 1D "line" cannot move/change without a 2nd dimension.
      A 2D "plane" cannot move/change without a 3rd dimension.
      A 3D "object" cannot move/change without a 4th dimension.
    P2. The 4th dimension is called "Time".
    C1. Therefore, "Without Time, there can be no Motion (of 3D objects)" is logically TRUE.
    C2. Therefore, "Without Motion, there can be no Time" is logically FALSE.

creation wrote:But, to me, the word 'time' is just the name or label some people have placed onto the reaction process of 'change', itself.

...To me, 'time' and 'change' could be synonymous with each other, that is; if they were obviously not two different words. If there are two different words, then they might as well have two different meanings. Otherwise they would just be the EXACT SAME thing, and so two different words would not be needed at all.

...What they call "time" and 'change' is just the same interchangeable thing…
Falsely equating "Time" as "change" is one of the ERRORS being committed in these discussions (...the other common error is claiming Time is dependent on Motion, when in fact it is the other way around). Time is NOT "change". Time is just a 'dimension' that allows (i.e. is the 'means') for change. Without Time, there can be no change/motion. (and not the other way around either).

Logical Certainties:
Time is independent of Motion.
Motion is dependent on Time.

creation wrote:Is it possible that the constant-change, itself, which happens eternally by the way, is the 4th "spatial dimension" that some people just refer to as 'time'?
No. We need Time for change to "occur" (hint hint). The 4th dimension is Time. It allows for change; "occurrences"; movement of 3D objects.

RJG wrote:Without a 'means' to move; or a pathway (i.e. the "dimension of Time") there could be no movement whatsoever. Nothing can move or happen (or occur) in a 'timeless' state.
creation wrote:But, to me, this constant state of change happens because both space and matter have always co-existed.
Space and Matter by themselves cannot yield Change (motion). We need another dimension (Time!) for that to "occur" (hint hint). Note: "Occur" is a 'temporal' word, which should immediately indicate to all of us that Time is needed for anything to "occur"!

gater
Posts: 267
Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by gater » January 14th, 2020, 4:00 pm

RJB - I find it interesting that you think of time as a 4th dimension. Dimensions are height, width, and depth - I count 3. Time is not a dimension.

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 2001
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by RJG » January 14th, 2020, 4:08 pm

gater wrote:RJB - I find it interesting that you think of time as a 4th dimension. Dimensions are height, width, and depth - I count 3. Time is not a dimension.
If you look at it through the lens of geometry, it will become very obvious. Objects can't move without it!
  • P1. From a geometric perspective:
    • A 0D "point" cannot move/change without a 1st dimension.
      A 1D "line" cannot move/change without a 2nd dimension.
      A 2D "plane" cannot move/change without a 3rd dimension.
      A 3D "object" cannot move/change without a 4th dimension.
    P2. The 4th dimension is called "Time".

User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 181
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Wittgenstein

Re: Is Time Just an Idea?

Post by Thomyum2 » January 14th, 2020, 4:09 pm

RJG wrote:
January 14th, 2020, 3:31 pm
To address these comments, as well as many others, refer to the following logic which proves my point:
  • P1. From a geometric perspective:
    • A 0D "point" cannot move/change without a 1st dimension.
      A 1D "line" cannot move/change without a 2nd dimension.
      A 2D "plane" cannot move/change without a 3rd dimension.
      A 3D "object" cannot move/change without a 4th dimension.
    P2. The 4th dimension is called "Time".
    C1. Therefore, "Without Time, there can be no Motion (of 3D objects)" is logically TRUE.
    C2. Therefore, "Without Motion, there can be no Time" is logically FALSE.
By that same logic:
  • P1. An Egg cannot be laid without a Chicken.
    P2. An Egg-laying Chicken is called a "Hen".
    C1. Therefore, "Without Hens, there can be no Eggs" is logically TRUE.
    C2. Therefore, "Without Eggs, there can be no Hens" is logically FALSE.

Post Reply