Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

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
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1508
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Post by Terrapin Station » January 23rd, 2020, 5:59 pm

gater wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 5:56 pm
Steve3007 wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 5:32 pm


What do you use to measure a "constant, eternal, universal now"? Can you buy one from the supermarket?
Time doesn't need a clock to be time.
Right, but there needs to be motion or change in some particulars (relative to others).

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 580
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Post by chewybrian » January 23rd, 2020, 7:29 pm

gater wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 5:54 pm
The center of the earth is younger than the surface? - Wrong The core of the earth is older than the surface, I know this because when the earth was formed the core was already there, and since then matter has fallen to the earth, and the atmosphere came when the earth started to cool. - All of the gold that has been found on earth came after the earth started to cool, because if the gold were here when earth formed it would have sunk to become part of the core.
It was not a question of the time the layers of the earth were formed. Due to the effects of gravity, from the time the earth was fully formed until now, time passed slower in the middle than on the outside, by about 2+1/2 years total. It is telling us about the passage of time at a certain location. The matter that was in the middle might have since risen to the top, or vice versa.
Steve3007 wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 11:56 am
So it's complicated. The general approach that physics takes to manage complexity: assume the horse is spherical.
The earth is about 25 miles more narrow at the poles than at the equator. Sea level in various places is actually miles nearer to or further from the center of the earth. People in Alaska are miles nearer to the center of the earth than those in Hawaii, so some fraction of that 2+1/2 years applies to those locations in comparison.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

gater
Posts: 153
Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am

Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Post by gater » January 23rd, 2020, 7:59 pm

chewybrian wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 7:29 pm
gater wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 5:54 pm
The center of the earth is younger than the surface? - Wrong The core of the earth is older than the surface, I know this because when the earth was formed the core was already there, and since then matter has fallen to the earth, and the atmosphere came when the earth started to cool. - All of the gold that has been found on earth came after the earth started to cool, because if the gold were here when earth formed it would have sunk to become part of the core.
It was not a question of the time the layers of the earth were formed. Due to the effects of gravity, from the time the earth was fully formed until now, time passed slower in the middle than on the outside, by about 2+1/2 years total. It is telling us about the passage of time at a certain location. The matter that was in the middle might have since risen to the top, or vice versa.


Time passes slower in the middle than on the outside? - this is false. Time passes at the same rate everywhere in the Universe.

gater
Posts: 153
Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am

Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Post by gater » January 23rd, 2020, 8:02 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 3:42 am
gater wrote:If Time Dilation actually effected Time - wouldn't there be spots on earth that are second slower or faster than the rest of the planet?
What you're asking here is this: "What observable phenomenon does the theory predict?" How might you find an answer to that question?

I have a wild and crazy idea: you could actually read what the theory predicts. If you do that, do you find anybody proposing a theory which predicts that "spots on earth are second slower or faster than the rest of the planet"? If so, please quote it. If not, who and what exactly are you disagreeing with?
The moronic Scientific Community that thinks Time Dilation effects time.

gater
Posts: 153
Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am

Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Post by gater » January 23rd, 2020, 8:15 pm

h_k_s wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 10:26 am
gater wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 5:28 pm
I have argued that Time Dilation is the effect that gravity has on devices that measure time, but it has no effect on Time itself.
In the past 50 - 75 years, man has learned to accurately measure time. Everywhere on earth has exactly the same time, of course we have time zones, so it might be 12:05:03 in Los Angeles and 8:05:03 in London. Always the same - everywhere on earth.
If Time Dilation actually effected Time - wouldn't there be spots on earth that are second slower or faster than the rest of the planet?
But there has NEVER been any evidence that time is not a constant. I submit that this is proof that Time is a constant.
There has never been any evidence that "time" even exists.


I don't think they could get 5 million for a 30 second Superbowl add if time didn't exist

User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 580
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Post by chewybrian » January 23rd, 2020, 8:16 pm

gater wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 7:59 pm
Time passes slower in the middle than on the outside? - this is false. Time passes at the same rate everywhere in the Universe.
I am not the best source on this, but I am pretty sure I got this right. Here is an easier source if you want to check it out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitati ... e_dilation
This has been demonstrated by noting that atomic clocks at differing altitudes (and thus different gravitational potential) will eventually show different times. The effects detected in such Earth-bound experiments are extremely small, with differences being measured in nanoseconds. Relative to Earth's age in billions of years, Earth's core is effectively 2.5 years younger than its surface.[2] Demonstrating larger effects would require greater distances from the Earth or a larger gravitational source.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 8598
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Post by Greta » January 23rd, 2020, 10:14 pm

gater wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 8:02 pm
Steve3007 wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 3:42 am


What you're asking here is this: "What observable phenomenon does the theory predict?" How might you find an answer to that question?

I have a wild and crazy idea: you could actually read what the theory predicts. If you do that, do you find anybody proposing a theory which predicts that "spots on earth are second slower or faster than the rest of the planet"? If so, please quote it. If not, who and what exactly are you disagreeing with?
The moronic Scientific Community that thinks Time Dilation effects time.
Should I lock the thread? I'm not seeing much of interest going on. Is the premise that time dilation locally doesn't change the time of a star across the other side of the galaxy?

Is the premise that space cannot be bent so as to change the course of light or the pace of entropy?

User avatar
RJG
Moderator
Posts: 1894
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Post by RJG » January 23rd, 2020, 11:55 pm

LuckyR wrote:...time only has meaning when measured by clocks.
So if there were no clocks (or measuring devices), then there would be no time?

Terrapin Station wrote:Time is simply motion or changes.
Since we need time for motion/change to "occur", time therefore cannot be motion/change.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 8598
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Post by Greta » January 24th, 2020, 12:47 am

However, there can be no time in a changeless universe.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3976
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Post by LuckyR » January 24th, 2020, 1:50 am

gater wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 5:28 pm
LuckyR wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 5:17 pm


OK, please describe this "time" thing you are going on about, in the absence of time measuring equipment.
Time is the measurement of the constant, eternal, universal now. There was no beginning of time.
Measurement? I said in the absence of time measuring equipment.

Try again.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3976
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Post by LuckyR » January 24th, 2020, 1:52 am

RJG wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 11:55 pm
LuckyR wrote:...time only has meaning when measured by clocks.
So if there were no clocks (or measuring devices), then there would be no time?
Pretty much yeah. Though the day/night cycle is a time measuring device (to measure a day), for example.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 8598
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Post by Greta » January 24th, 2020, 2:35 am

LuckyR wrote:
January 24th, 2020, 1:52 am
RJG wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 11:55 pm

So if there were no clocks (or measuring devices), then there would be no time?
Pretty much yeah. Though the day/night cycle is a time measuring device (to measure a day), for example.
I would think there was time in the life cycles of stars and planets as they go through their various stages.

A timeless universe would effectively either be completely chaotic or completely ordered. Total chaos lacks structure and differentiation while total order lacks change. So the dance of order and chaos is needed for time to be, for almost everything to exist, really.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 6845
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Post by Steve3007 » January 24th, 2020, 6:59 am

Steve3007 wrote:I have a wild and crazy idea: you could actually read what the theory predicts.
gater wrote:The moronic Scientific Community that thinks Time Dilation effects time.
Yes, those morons. Start with the moron called Galileo, work forward through morons such as Kepler, Newton, Faraday and Maxwell, until you reach such morons as Einstein and Lorentz. To find out what they think or thought, can you think of a method? (Clue: I mentioned the method in the quote from my post, above.)

(Words are defined by usage, so I'm assuming from the context that word "moron" means "person".)

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 6845
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Post by Steve3007 » January 24th, 2020, 7:47 am

Steve3007 wrote:assume the horse is spherical
chewybrian wrote:The earth is about 25 miles more narrow at the poles than at the equator.
I shouldn't make obscure unexplained references. Sorry. Ignore that part of my post.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 1508
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Proof that Time Dilation does not effect time.

Post by Terrapin Station » January 24th, 2020, 8:35 am

RJG wrote:
January 23rd, 2020, 11:55 pm
LuckyR wrote:...time only has meaning when measured by clocks.
So if there were no clocks (or measuring devices), then there would be no time?

Terrapin Station wrote:Time is simply motion or changes.
Since we need time for motion/change to "occur", time therefore cannot be motion/change.
This is a good example for Greta re something scientists often say to me a la not disagreeing with me.

And they say it because they don't understand what I'm claiming, where they have a difficult time thinking outside of the well-worn grooves that have been made by being familiar with the usual language of the sciences.

Time is motion or change occurring. The two sides of the "is" in that previous sentence are ontologically identical. Motion/change aren't ontologically dependent on something else (you'd need to present a plausible account of ontological dependence to argue this--what are the criteria of ontological dependence and why are those the criteria). And re how motion is defined in physics, it's simply defined relative to other motions/changes. For example, the motion of A is defined as the change in position of A relative to the motion or change in a device like a clock, and relative to the positions of other objects.

Post Reply