| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Relastic" |
| Date: |
15 Feb 2006 06:34:54 AM |
| Object: |
What really is Time, seriously? |
If SR and GR is true and it's taken to its logical conclusion, then
time is not time as we know it. What then is time? Could it be some
kind of fuel to power matter such that in time dilation, the atoms
run slower hence time seems to get "slower"? This may sound
ridiculous but give me something to visualize the organizational
structure of time or why it can do what it does in SR, GR.
If it's a complete mystery and no one knows, let me know too.
I don't know what is the most popular mainstream idea of time
as believed by serious scientists. So what is it.
R.
.
|
|
| User: "JMA" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 12:29:01 PM |
|
|
"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:1140006894.037958.69050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
If SR and GR is true and it's taken to its logical conclusion, then
time is not time as we know it. What then is time? Could it be some
kind of fuel to power matter such that in time dilation, the atoms
run slower hence time seems to get "slower"? This may sound
ridiculous but give me something to visualize the organizational
structure of time or why it can do what it does in SR, GR.
If it's a complete mystery and no one knows, let me know too.
I don't know what is the most popular mainstream idea of time
as believed by serious scientists. So what is it.
There is no consensus about time, mass or energy.
My point of view is that reality doesn't care about mass,
time, length or energy. All those units have been chosen
by mankind according to its convenience.
Reality is about "power" (energy/time = local energy
flowing over local time).
Power is conserved even in SR or GR.
Mass at high speed increases its energy (by gamma) and
time slows by the same amount (gamma), so that
power = energy / time = constant
For instance a mass of 1kg at 0,5c will have a
kinetic energy of 1/2 m (0,5c)^2 by Newton.
SR says the mass is not 1kg but 1kg/gamma.
SR says that the unit of time is not one second anymore
but the proper time = 1s/gamma.
Hence:
Power = (1/2 m (0,5c)^2/gamma)/(time/gamma) =
= 1/2 m (0,5c)^2 = Power by Newton
SR is circular and everything remains the same when
our point of view is "power".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 02:03:03 PM |
|
|
"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140006894.037958.69050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
If SR and GR is true and it's taken to its logical conclusion, then
time is not time as we know it. What then is time? Could it be some
kind of fuel to power matter such that in time dilation, the atoms
run slower hence time seems to get "slower"? This may sound
ridiculous but give me something to visualize the organizational
structure of time or why it can do what it does in SR, GR.
If it's a complete mystery and no one knows, let me know too.
I don't know what is the most popular mainstream idea of time
as believed by serious scientists. So what is it.
R.
Whoa!
What is a "serious" scientist and what does "mainstream" have to do with
anything?
Time is time, there are no other words to describe it, only examples.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 07:32:26 AM |
|
|
"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1140006894.037958.69050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
If SR and GR is true and it's taken to its logical conclusion, then
time is not time as we know it. What then is time? Could it be some
kind of fuel to power matter such that in time dilation, the atoms
run slower hence time seems to get "slower"? This may sound
ridiculous but give me something to visualize the organizational
structure of time or why it can do what it does in SR, GR.
If it's a complete mystery and no one knows, let me know too.
I don't know what is the most popular mainstream idea of time
as believed by serious scientists. So what is it.
Physicists define time as what we read on clocks.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 12:07:12 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:K3GIf.258642$Jb6.7982220@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| Physicists define time as what we read on clocks.
Only the physicists that have no idea how clocks work do that.
Physicists that have brains know a clock is nothing more
than a periodic motion counting machine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 12:11:08 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message news:GpudnWX0XqBY8G7enZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:K3GIf.258642$Jb6.7982220@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| Physicists define time as what we read on clocks.
Only the physicists that have no idea how clocks work do that.
Physicists that have brains know a clock is nothing more
than a periodic motion counting machine.
Alas, no physicist knows what moves or even whether
something moves in the best clocks we have and that define
time and its unit:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
"The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the
radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 12:15:03 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:09KIf.259074$mZ6.7684231@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| Alas, no physicist knows what moves or even whether
| something moves in the best clocks we have and that define
| time and its unit:
| http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
| "The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the
| radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
| hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."
So,
You admit physicists of your type don't even have a clue
"how" the clock actually operates.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 12:27:17 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message news:9oydnU35CckB8m7eRVn-rA@comcast.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:09KIf.259074$mZ6.7684231@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| Alas, no physicist knows what moves or even whether
| something moves in the best clocks we have and that define
| time and its unit:
| http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
| "The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the
| radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
| hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."
So,
You admit physicists of your type don't even have a clue
"how" the clock actually operates.
If you know whether something moves and if so, how it
moves in a cesium atom, feel free to publish your model.
LOL
Whatever makes you happy.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 12:32:55 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:9oKIf.259100$o53.7931004@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| If you know whether something moves and if so, how it
| moves in a cesium atom, feel free to publish your model.
If it does not move as you state,
how can such radiation occur at all,
and how do you count anything about it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 12:36:08 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message news:8-mdnazBLtxQ7m7eRVn-og@comcast.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:9oKIf.259100$o53.7931004@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| If you know whether something moves and if so, how it
| moves in a cesium atom, feel free to publish your model.
If it does not move as you state,
I don't state that it does not move.
You have to learn to read what people write.
Dirk Vdm
how can such radiation occur at all,
and how do you count anything about it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 12:38:18 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:swKIf.259116$3w6.7845913@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:8-mdnazBLtxQ7m7eRVn-og@comcast.com...
| >
| > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
| > in message news:9oKIf.259100$o53.7931004@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| > | If you know whether something moves and if so, how it
| > | moves in a cesium atom, feel free to publish your model.
| >
| > If it does not move as you state,
|
| I don't state that it does not move.
| You have to learn to read what people write.
oops,
my bad,
you stated they may not know whether something moves
at all.
but of course. there must be motion to count something
periodically.
so I would hope they know "something" moves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 01:01:08 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message news:wMWdnZOvL9-N6G7enZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:swKIf.259116$3w6.7845913@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:8-mdnazBLtxQ7m7eRVn-og@comcast.com...
| >
| > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
| > in message news:9oKIf.259100$o53.7931004@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| > | If you know whether something moves and if so, how it
| > | moves in a cesium atom, feel free to publish your model.
| >
| > If it does not move as you state,
|
| I don't state that it does not move.
| You have to learn to read what people write.
oops,
my bad,
you stated they may not know whether something moves
at all.
which is not the same as stating that nothing moves.
but of course. there must be motion to count something
periodically.
Maybe you are sure about that.
I'm not the religious type.
so I would hope they know "something" moves.
You can hope as much as you want, it will not make
anyone know whether "something" moves.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 01:07:30 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:UTKIf.259154$9N4.7935090@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:wMWdnZOvL9-N6G7enZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
| >
| > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
| > in message news:swKIf.259116$3w6.7845913@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| > |
| > | "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
| > news:8-mdnazBLtxQ7m7eRVn-og@comcast.com...
| > | >
| > | > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
| > wrote
| > | > in message news:9oKIf.259100$o53.7931004@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| > | > | If you know whether something moves and if so, how it
| > | > | moves in a cesium atom, feel free to publish your model.
| > | >
| > | > If it does not move as you state,
| > |
| > | I don't state that it does not move.
| > | You have to learn to read what people write.
| >
| > oops,
| > my bad,
| > you stated they may not know whether something moves
| > at all.
|
| which is not the same as stating that nothing moves.
yup, hence the "oops, my bad" statement before that.
<snipped the rest of the "head stuck in sand" syndrome>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 01:14:30 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message news:t_udnfUyEo115m7enZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:UTKIf.259154$9N4.7935090@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:wMWdnZOvL9-N6G7enZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
| >
| > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
| > in message news:swKIf.259116$3w6.7845913@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| > |
| > | "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
| > news:8-mdnazBLtxQ7m7eRVn-og@comcast.com...
| > | >
| > | > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
| > wrote
| > | > in message news:9oKIf.259100$o53.7931004@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| > | > | If you know whether something moves and if so, how it
| > | > | moves in a cesium atom, feel free to publish your model.
| > | >
| > | > If it does not move as you state,
| > |
| > | I don't state that it does not move.
| > | You have to learn to read what people write.
| >
| > oops,
| > my bad,
| > you stated they may not know whether something moves
| > at all.
|
| which is not the same as stating that nothing moves.
yup, hence the "oops, my bad" statement before that.
<snipped the rest of the "head stuck in sand" syndrome>
You can pull your head out of it anytime you like:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/Sunshine.jpg
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 01:37:03 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:q4LIf.259174$6%5.7952484@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| You can pull your head out of it anytime you like:
| http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/Sunshine.jpg
Nice picture of yourself Dirk,
Is that why you keep it on your site?
For memories of how you actually look to an outside the
box type thinker?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Relastic" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 07:53:16 AM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1140006894.037958.69050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
If SR and GR is true and it's taken to its logical conclusion, then
time is not time as we know it. What then is time? Could it be some
kind of fuel to power matter such that in time dilation, the atoms
run slower hence time seems to get "slower"? This may sound
ridiculous but give me something to visualize the organizational
structure of time or why it can do what it does in SR, GR.
If it's a complete mystery and no one knows, let me know too.
I don't know what is the most popular mainstream idea of time
as believed by serious scientists. So what is it.
Physicists define time as what we read on clocks.
Dirk Vdm
Clocks are made of mechanical parts. At relativistic speed,
what if its encounter with the higgs field is not strong enough
to register and the matter mass-higgs coupling get weak
and slow down the movement of the parts. This can have
the effect of slowing down "time". Could this explains time
dilation.
This may sound silly. But if it is not the above. If time can
do what it does in relativity, then time has energy. Time
must have a quanta. Time can do far stranger things in
SR, GR and so time having energy is not a nutty idea.
R.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 08:03:26 AM |
|
|
"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1140011596.654855.25640@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Relastic" <rela_lastic@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1140006894.037958.69050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
If SR and GR is true and it's taken to its logical conclusion, then
time is not time as we know it. What then is time? Could it be some
kind of fuel to power matter such that in time dilation, the atoms
run slower hence time seems to get "slower"? This may sound
ridiculous but give me something to visualize the organizational
structure of time or why it can do what it does in SR, GR.
If it's a complete mystery and no one knows, let me know too.
I don't know what is the most popular mainstream idea of time
as believed by serious scientists. So what is it.
Physicists define time as what we read on clocks.
Dirk Vdm
Clocks are made of mechanical parts.
The most precise clocks and the processes that drive them,
that are used to define the unit of time, and therefore time,
aren't:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
"The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the
radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."
At relativistic speed,
what if its encounter with the higgs field is not strong enough
to register and the matter mass-higgs coupling get weak
and slow down the movement of the parts. This can have
the effect of slowing down "time". Could this explains time
dilation.
Time dilation is "explained" by comparing readings of
two clocks.
Dirk Vdm
This may sound silly. But if it is not the above. If time can
do what it does in relativity, then time has energy. Time
must have a quanta. Time can do far stranger things in
SR, GR and so time having energy is not a nutty idea.
R.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 08:13:30 AM |
|
|
Relastic wrote:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
Physicists define time as what we read on clocks.
Dirk Vdm
Clocks are made of mechanical parts. At relativistic speed,
what if its encounter with the higgs field is not strong enough
to register and the matter mass-higgs coupling get weak
and slow down the movement of the parts. This can have
the effect of slowing down "time". Could this explains time
dilation.
Try not to look for a Newtonian explanation for time dilation.
Some clocks are not "mechanical".
The Higgs field is likely to be identically the same everywhere
in the universe... and is theorized to give some classes of
particles the property we call mass.
Space and time are not absolute, but the speed of light is.
In Einstein's 1905 paper, known as special relativity, the two
postulates of finite and constant speed of light, and that the
physics in this inertial frame is identical to the physics in
that inertial frame are sufficient to explain the phenomena of
velocity related time dilation.
Time dilation is also an effect of gravitational fields as is
modeled bu general relativity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 12:10:07 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:eGGIf.777559$_o.688503@attbi_s71...
| Some clocks are not "mechanical".
*****.
all clocks basically still have a "mechanical motion"
being counted periodically.
Or are you saying the atomic clock is not a machine?
LOL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "oriel36" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 07:25:22 AM |
|
|
Clocks are exquisite devices based on the principle of maintaining an
equable pace against which all other motions can be compared.The
standard pace of hours minutes and seconds is based on a human devised
principle of the equable 24 hour day through the noon Equation of Time
correction.This principle was adapted by heliocentrist to axial
rotation at 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours/360 degrees in total as a
point of departure for the principle of clocks as rulers of distance *.
Clocks do not measure a quantity of 'time' even though it is perfectly
acceptable to use it for the convenience of civil purposes however to
say rthat clocks measure time like rulers measure distance is wishful
thinking in the extreme.Relativity is a concept based on watches rather
than 'time' and is harmless in its own rights except for those who
actually bottle 'time' up in a clock.
Again,clocks,whether sand clocks,mechanical or atomic clocks serve the
purpose of maintaining an equable pace against which other motions can
be compared.That pace was set by astronomical principles and
unfortunately the same people who bottle 'time' up in a clock no longer
comprehend what those original principles are .
*
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802713440/002-1359543-1191212?v=glance&n=283155
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 07:30:10 AM |
|
|
oriel36 wrote:
Clocks are exquisite devices based on the principle of maintaining an
equable pace against which all other motions can be compared.>
Proper Time (time is what a clock measures)
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ProperTime.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 12:05:54 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:C1GIf.769464$x96.704762@attbi_s72...
| oriel36 wrote:
| > Clocks are exquisite devices based on the principle of maintaining an
| > equable pace against which all other motions can be compared.>
|
| Proper Time (time is what a clock measures)
Clocks do not measure a "thing" that is time itself.
Clocks measure a motion of a mass and count such motions
periodically and such counting is abstracted into a time.
(that is also the basic reason that motion can cause a clocks malfunction)
That good old inertia thing likes to screw with clocks.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "oriel36" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 02:14:15 PM |
|
|
James
Clocks measure nothing, clocks were designed to keep a standard
pace,period.
Once you get into measuring a time quantity you are alrealdy into
wishful thinking .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: What really is Time, seriously? |
15 Feb 2006 02:34:08 PM |
|
|
"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140034455.378319.118690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| James
|
| Clocks measure nothing, clocks were designed to keep a standard
| pace,period.
|
| Once you get into measuring a time quantity you are alrealdy into
| wishful thinking .
:)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=E2=84=9Eelf?=" |
|
| Title: Time is actually parochial and static. |
15 Feb 2006 03:09:13 PM |
|
|
Hi Relastic, You asked about time and relativity.
Time is a spatial dimension, I posit. Time is actually parochial and static.
It's only unknowns -- a.k.a. randomness -- that makes time seem directional.
Entropy is the fifth spatial dimension, a.k.a. cosmic time.
It's only unknowns that make life, gravity and photons seem like
they're in a casino, i.e. only winning in the short term
-- consumming, glomming on -- always losing in the end, dissipating.
Relativity deals with the tiniest of particles, moving near the speed of light,
and the largest black holes with near infinite gravitational acceleration
and Unruh radiation at it's ever forming, never completed, event horizon.
Standard clocks -- such as black body radiation --
are _Observed_ by _Distant_ observers to tic slower
in ultra tiny particles and at event horizons.
....while local observers see standard clocks tic the same
no matter when or where they are.
Standard candles, such as type 1a supernovae, tell us that
Einstein's cosmological constant is the best theory.
The net mass_energy of the universe is slightly negative,
entropy is always going up, heading towards the death of all mass_energy.
Humans think they're in the middle of all this,
between the near infinite density at the start of the big bang
to the near perfect vacuum at the end... but are they... or is it just hubris ?
All meaning is local -- here and now -- the rest is inane.
I'm a rat in God's maze... and God to the rat in my maze.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: Time is actually parochial and static. |
16 Feb 2006 02:39:37 AM |
|
|
All change is local.
GLB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Time is actually parochial and static. |
15 Feb 2006 04:40:58 PM |
|
|
"Jeff_?elf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Feb_15_Fh6I@Cotse.NET...
Hi Relastic, You asked about time and relativity.
Time is a spatial dimension, I posit. Time is actually parochial and
static.
It's only unknowns -- a.k.a. randomness -- that makes time seem
directional.
Entropy is the fifth spatial dimension, a.k.a. cosmic time.
You can posit anything you like, doesnt make it true. Do you have any method
of experimentally proving this?
Can you show how you have modeled "entropy" as a spatial dimension and the
effects this has on any equations we already use?
Is there any possible way we can use the scientific method to examine your
(ahem) theory?
All meaning is local -- here and now -- the rest is inane.
I'm a rat in God's maze... and God to the rat in my maze.
All very metaphysical. Still crap.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=E2=84=9Eelf?=" |
|
| Title: T_Wake, madly deluded. |
16 Feb 2006 06:39:30 AM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, I wrote:
Time is a spatial dimension, I posit. Time is actually parochial and static.
It's only unknowns -- a.k.a. randomness -- that makes time seem directional.
Entropy is the fifth spatial dimension, a.k.a. cosmic time.
And you replied:
Can you show how you have modeled "entropy" as a spatial dimension
and the effects this has on any equations we already use ?
Yea, it's Einstein's cosmological constant, a.k.a. dark energy.
It's what's dissipating space-time itself, observationally.
It's the _Fucking_ second law of thermodynamics, for crying out loud.
It's only unknows -- a.k.a. randomness -- that makes things like
life, gravity and photon spin seem like they're in a casino,
i.e., only winning in the short term
-- consumming, glomming on -- always losing in the end, dissipating.
That's what too many so-called adults know but can't admit.
I wrote:
All meaning is local -- here and now -- the rest is inane.
I'm a rat in God's maze... and God to the rat in my maze.
And you replied: All very metaphysical. Still crap.
Hardly... people like Nietzsche would've loved to have known that.
Failing to understand it makes _You_ lost in the universe... madly deluded.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: T_Wake, madly deluded. |
16 Feb 2006 12:44:27 PM |
|
|
"Jeff_Nutelf" <Me@Privacy.NET> babled in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Feb_16_W3vf@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, I wrote:
Time is a spatial dimension, I posit. Time is actually parochial and
static.
It's only unknowns -- a.k.a. randomness -- that makes time seem
directional.
Entropy is the fifth spatial dimension, a.k.a. cosmic time.
And you replied:
Can you show how you have modeled "entropy" as a spatial dimension
and the effects this has on any equations we already use ?
Yea, it's Einstein's cosmological constant, a.k.a. dark energy.
It's what's dissipating space-time itself, observationally.
It's the _Fucking_ second law of thermodynamics, for crying out loud.
Really. First off let me point out how you avoided my question and tried to
answer in a deflective manner. If you dont want to (or cant) answer then why
bother replying?
Can you explain to an obvious dullard like myself where you have evidence to
link the cosmological constant with a dissipation of space time?
The generally accepted understanding of the universe is that space is
increasing, this is not normally considered the same as saying space-time is
dissipating.
Also (or instead of - your choice) can you enlighten me as to the
cosmological constant (or entropy) being a spatial dimension? What scale are
we talking here? How do you model a spatial dimension as a constant in the
manner you imply here.
As it stands, your post (and this attempt to insult me) reads like you have
collected a list of words from a first year physics text book and randomly
inserted them into your post.
I am fully aware of the problems with the ambiguity of language, and English
is not ideal for physics, so I am more than happy for you to explain it to
me in formula.
It's only unknows -- a.k.a. randomness -- that makes things like
life, gravity and photon spin seem like they're in a casino,
i.e., only winning in the short term
-- consumming, glomming on -- always losing in the end, dissipating.
Interesting and all very metaphysical again. If you seek a career as a
"Mystic" in some invented "far eastern cult" then you will do well. As it
stands, and based on this post being in sci.physics I want to see some
science in your assumptions and claims.
I assume you are trying to paraphrase the second law of thermodynamics here
but I cant see how hit is relevant to the rest of your claims.
Unknowns and randomness are not the same thing. There are things we dont
know which are not random.
Its a pretty sad world view that thinks things like "life .. only winning in
the short term." I suspect its more an indicator of your state of mind than
the physical state of the world.
That's what too many so-called adults know but can't admit.
Possibly.
I wrote:
All meaning is local -- here and now -- the rest is inane.
I'm a rat in God's maze... and God to the rat in my maze.
And you replied: All very metaphysical. Still crap.
Hardly... people like Nietzsche would've loved to have known that.
How do you know? Do you think *you* are the only person who has ever
espoused that idea?
Failing to understand it makes _You_ lost in the universe... madly
deluded.
Really? On the other hand, I "posit" that thinking it makes
_You_lost_in_the_universe_..._madly_deluded.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=E2=84=9Eelf?=" |
|
| Title: T_Wake, Name one thing that wins in the long run ? ! I dare you ! |
16 Feb 2006 02:48:20 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, You claimed I was being metaphyical, not enough of a positivist.
Einstein said:
Every true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist,
no matter how pure a _Positivist_ he may fancy himself.
[ ... He believes in ]
a conceptual system built on premises of great simplicity.
The principles of Relativity are incredibly simple, no equations are required.
Relativity is about what a _Local_ observer will see,
....because the rest is inane. Einstein surely knew that.
The Principle_of_Relativity posits that all the laws of physics,
-- including the speed of light in a virtual, ha ha, vacuum --
should be the same everywhere.
I say, Ha Ha, because there's no place with no magnetic fields,
no gravitational fields, no Unruh radiation, absolute zero and a true vacuum.
Remember, relativity ostensibly is about actual observations.
A local observer at a Hypernova_Cum_Black_Hole would see just that,
a hyper rapid explosion... culminating in the end of the universe.
The Unruh radiation would approach infinity
as the density and gravitational acceleration did the same.
Hawking had this to say about his current model of black holes:
Thus the total path integral is unitary
and information is not lost in the formation and evaporation of black holes.
The way the information gets out seems to be that
a true event horizon never forms, just an apparent horizon.
__ GR Conference website summary of Hawking's talk.
Relativity deals with the tiniest of particles, moving near the speed of light,
and the largest black holes with near infinite gravitational acceleration
and Unruh radiation at it's ever forming, never completed, event horizon.
Standard clocks -- such as black body radiation --
are _Observed_ by _Distant_ observers to tic slower
in ultra tiny particles and at event horizons.
....while local observers see standard clocks tic the same
no matter when or where they are.
Standard candles, such as type 1a supernovae, tell us that
Einstein's cosmological constant is the best theory.
The net mass_energy of the universe is _Observed_ to be slightly negative,
entropy is always going up, heading towards the death of all mass_energy.
Humans think they're in the middle of all this,
between the near infinite density at the start of the big bang
to the near perfect vacuum at the end... but are they... or is it just hubris ?
You told me:
The generally accepted understanding of the universe is that
[ space-time has been expanding at an accelerated rate
for about the last 12 billion years... and maybe indefinitely ]
this is not normally considered the same as saying space-time is dissipating.
Do you know what cosmic time is ?
See WikiPedia's Observational_constraints_on_theories at:
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/End_of_the_universe#Observational_constraints_on_theories
Do you know what Einstein's cosmological constant is ?
See WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Cosmological_constant
I posit that entropy is cosmic time, a spatial dimension, as it's observed,
....it never regresses.
You postulated:
Unknowns and randomness are not the same thing.
There are things we don't know which are not random.
Like what, for example ? ! Your postulate here is worthless.
You commented:
Its a pretty sad world view that thinks things like
" life .. only winning in the short term. "
I suspect its more an indicator of your state of mind
than the physical state of the world.
Name one thing that wins in the long run ? ! I dare you !
As I said... you are madly deluded.
I wote:
All meaning is local -- here and now -- the rest is inane.
I'm a rat in God's maze... and God to the rat in my maze.
People like Nietzsche would've loved to have known that.
And you replied:
How do you know ?
Do you think *you* are the only person who has ever espoused that idea ?
Of course not, I'm not nearly as deluded as that, or you.
I read a lot... obviously.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: T_Wake, Name one thing that wins in the long run ? ! I dare you ! |
16 Feb 2006 03:42:16 PM |
|
|
"Jeff_?elf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Feb_16_Gniw@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, You claimed I was being metaphyical, not enough of a
positivist.
No I just said you were being metaphysical and full of crap. The voices in
your head added the rest.
The Principle_of_Relativity posits that all the laws of physics,
-- including the speed of light in a virtual, ha ha, vacuum --
should be the same everywhere.
Yes.
I see Eric Gisse has done a good job of pointing out the errors in most of
the rest of your post, so I wont bother.
I would like to point out that when I asked you if *you* understood the
cosmological constant (and by inference the Hubble constant) I didnt ask for
you to post wikipedia links. Your usage of the terms implies your
understanding is very, very limited.
The net mass_energy of the universe is _Observed_ to be slightly negative,
entropy is always going up, heading towards the death of all mass_energy.
Why have you underscored observed like this?
You mix many a metaphor here which makes it difficult for me to be sure what
you are trying to imply.
Humans think they're in the middle of all this,
Only uneducated ones. Can you cite me one scientific journal in the last 30
years which implies Humanity is in the centre of the universe?
between the near infinite density at the start of the big bang
to the near perfect vacuum at the end... but are they... or is it just
hubris ?
No, it is all in your mind.
You are assuming the "heat-death" scenario accurately describes the end of
the universe. Do you have evidence to support this?
You told me:
The generally accepted understanding of the universe is that
[ space-time has been expanding at an accelerated rate
for about the last 12 billion years... and maybe indefinitely ]
this is not normally considered the same as saying space-time is
dissipating.
Why did you feel the need to rephrase my post in your reply? Why did you add
things to it that I had never said.
You are claiming "space time" is dissipating and I have asked you to explain
how you reconcile that with the cosmological expansion.
Do you know what cosmic time is ?
Well, it appears to be something that has come about after my time in
university. I did a wiki search on it (no hits) and the top link on google
(http://www.cosmictime.de/) leaves me very sceptical and still bewildered as
to why you are invoking it here as an answer.
See WikiPedia's Observational_constraints_on_theories at:
The link you posted
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_the_universe#Observational_constraints_on_theories)
points to a subarticle which explains nothing about your understanding of
cosmological time.
Please, try to answer the question asked.
Do you know what Einstein's cosmological constant is ?
See WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Cosmological_constant
Actually I do know what the cosmological constant is. I spent a few years
getting it drummed into my head.
Do you realise why you use it incorrectly?
I posit that entropy is cosmic time, a spatial dimension, as it's
observed,
...it never regresses.
How can we experimentally test this?
Your posits are similar to the ones my 8 year old daughter makes. Very
fanciful and normally distant from the truth.
I posit your understanding of cosmology is very limited.
You postulated:
Unknowns and randomness are not the same thing.
There are things we don't know which are not random.
Like what, for example ? ! Your postulate here is worthless.
It has identical worth and is backed up by the same amount of evidence.
We dont know what happened at t=0 after the big bang for instance. Do you
imply that is a random event?
I think I see where your problems lie though.
You commented:
Its a pretty sad world view that thinks things like
" life .. only winning in the short term. "
I suspect its more an indicator of your state of mind
than the physical state of the world.
Name one thing that wins in the long run ? ! I dare you !
As I said... you are madly deluded.
Now we hit the big issue.
You are working under the belief that because computer science is a
"science" you (a computer *programmer*) understand science. You appear to
miss the basic scientific principles and critically your lack of
understanding doesnt make them wrong.
I will attempt to answer your question and explain to you why what you say
is metaphysical (crap) and not science.
You want an example of something that wins in the long run. You have defined
neither "win" or "long run" leaving it entirely to me.
I define "win" as genetic code surviving and propagating. I define "long
run" as 2x10^3 years.
My genetic code (especially the maternal chromosone) has survived and
prospered (and I have children) since the dawn of life on Earth. Since the
first anatomically modern human walked on this planet at least some element
of that creatures genome has survived and been passed down until it reached
me. This code has since been passed on to my children. It is probably that
elements of this creatures genome have survived intact since the first signs
of life on Earth.
That is an organism that has won in the long run.
Now, I suspect you will counter this by trying to expand the long run or
redefine win. If you take the long run outside the regions we can measure
then you render the question unscientific and unanswerable. You have as much
chance as I do of knowing what organisms will still be "winning" in a
hundred years, let alone 4 billion years time.
Feel free to let me know what your new definitions are though.
I wote:
All meaning is local -- here and now -- the rest is inane.
I'm a rat in God's maze... and God to the rat in my maze.
People like Nietzsche would've loved to have known that.
And you replied:
How do you know ?
Do you think *you* are the only person who has ever espoused that idea ?
Of course not, I'm not nearly as deluded as that, or you.
You are deluded enough to imply that your quaint little comment is either
interesting or innovative. I suspect that makes you more deluded than me.
I read a lot... obviously.
Try to read educational material and then learn some.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
