No. Funnily enough Einstein never once in his entire career mentioned what space-time was. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sometimes, saint I think your naive, innocent persona is just a very well engineered act , and you may be the worst troll on this forum hands down. Here's your original post that kicked this ruckus up: Also in this thread: (This after several pages of members defining time to the best of their ability) And my favorite: We're just rats in a maze to you, aren't we?
All true. All are properties of a series of "clocks" - their movements. The last part of those 13.83 billion years had man made clocks of ever increasingly accuracy. Earlier man and before man, birds etc. used the sun clock - regular alteration of day light and darkness. Much earlier the main clock in this part of space was the movement toward higher density of the mainly hydrogen gas cloud but our gas cloud contained some "trash" or "ash" from the deaths of still earlier stars. - All still just motions - no more evidence of something else other than motion existing than I see today when looking at the pendulum of a grand father clock swing - all just motions of process occurring - not one is a "property of time." Time has no mass, no volume, no odder nor any color. - No observable property or as Newton said "time is not sensible." If you are going to offer as evidence of time's property, why not use a paper calendar, like the one a bank sent me to day. - That at least I can touch and is not just more motion.
The hands of the stopwatch move, and inside the stopwatch cogs move. It always comes back to motion. Yes, I'm an inefficient machine, and I age. I wear out. But if you could turn me off by shoving me into a freezer for a hundred years, then thaw me out all OK, I wouldn't have aged. Because nothing was moving. See above. No motion, no time.
"Shove" is such an ugly word. Let's say we coax you in with a nice cup of creamy hot cocoa, and gently shut the door on you. See you in 2114, or not since we'll all be dead. (Jokes on us).
No. He described it with tensor math. Very small fraction of the population can even correctly read the tensor notation as it is very compact with many conventions as to what a super script index like "i" vs a sub script "i'' means or what the meaning of repeated indices mean, etc. (Other things I have forgotten) Years ago I could read tensor equations but it was and effort. I spent more than an hour just reading one page in the journal Modern Physics, Section B, as I recall and that was after I had my Ph. D. in physics. I only read the equations - did not check any! That was possible for me, back then, but I did not have a few days to waste. You may have noted that I do not comment in the discussion of BHs or GR, as I known enough to know I will just be repeating some popularize versions of what can not be "popularized." Let me give one example of the nonsense of the popularized verions of Hawking radiation: Some times you will read that the energy "leaking out of a black hole" is due to virtual pair production very near the event horizon, and one virtual paricle, say the positron, falls inside the EH so the virtual electron become a real one adding 0.511Mev to the observable universe (energy conservation implies it "leaked out" of the BH). The other version is built on the fact that a temperature is defined for the EH, a rapidly increasing T as the BH is getting small. In fact the black body radiation from a just about to disappear BH is mainly gamma rays. Thus according to this popularized verions the energy added to the observable universe leaking out of a BH is in the form of EM waves, not particles. Which is correct? Neither - What is correct POV is given only in the math, I doubt most (no one?) spouting off about it here can even just correctly read, much less understand. I. e. I know enough to keep my mouth shut - but few know even that much.
It's a digital stopwatch, not one of those old fashioned deals. No moving hands, just changing digital numbers. Every time one number changes it's one second more time added to the t=0 start, when you started the motion in question, ie waggling your hands. It doesn't matter what, if you're in a freezer for 100 years, the stop watch elapsed 100 years. What you look like after 100 years is of no concern to time. Time is simply 100 years. It took you time to type the above. When you finished typing you posted, at the time listed in your post. Your reply will be a different time stamp. If you do a little math, like how many minutes it is from 12:03 to 12:31, then you can know how much time elapsed in between the two posts of yours. See??
You guys replied so fast and in huge volume of text, how could I read all threads and "understand" them? Anyway, I appreciate your discussion.
Then the stopwatch works off an oscillating crystal. Something other than cogs moving in a regular cyclical fashion. And electrons, moving through circuitry. And a year is the duration of one Earth orbit round the Sun. The Earth moves once round the Sun, and we say a year has elapsed. Yes, and in order to type I moved my fingers. Then when I finished, I moved my hand and hit the ENTER button. And when I subtract 12:03 from 12:31 I say the duration is 28 minutes. And we "measured" those 28 minutes using a clock that featured something moving. Like I said, it always come back to motion. The motion of something through space, not the motion or passage or flow of time.
It gets worse. One of the pair of particles is said to be a negative-energy particle. Only there are no negative energy particles. See Wiki: "A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle."
You have a Ph D in physics and you can't identify what an isolated system is? You mathematically proved time doesn't exist? You can prove gravity doesn't exist? But yet you can't explain mass without them? Rewrite GR without time then, you'll get a Nobel prize for sures. And no, this is not trolling. This is me getting annoyed by your arrogance. But are you worth it? I have studying to do, Mr. Physicist that can't do math.
How the stopwatch works is irrelevant. It could be a shaft spinning at 60 RPM. Every complete revolution the shaft makes is 1 second. If the shaft rotates 67 complete revolutions while you type a post, then you typed for 67 seconds. If the earth happens to take a specific amount of time to complete 1 revolution around the sun, great! How much time does it take to complete the next revolution, in your crystal ball? Again, it was measured. You seem to be hung up on the method of measurement. The method is not relevant, the time was 28 minutes, period. It already elapsed and was measured.
I defined "real" in post 258 as: "Real things have at least one observable property, even it just a smell; however some non-real things, like God, souls with re-incarnation, luck, hell, etc., may exist and no-one can prove they do not exist, as "absence of proof is NOT proof of absence." and then in some later post I distinguished o-real from s-real. I.e. o-real things were observable by all or "o-objective" and s-real things were only observed or experience by each person or were "subjective" Thus, I would make the same definitions for o-exist and s-exist. "Observed" and "Observable" can also be refined into O-observable & S-observable by these definitions. Time has only S-observability, not O-observability. It is the change, motions (even just of atoms in a chemical reaction) that has O-observability. This is because time has no observable properties - is not "sensible" as Newton said. I did intend to get back to a post I started which suggested why humans (and probably many other animals) do have s-observable sense of time. It has to due with fact everything we observe or experience is implemented in neural network activity. That activity has a certain persistence. My post specifically discussed forms of less than a second duration active of the neural activity associated with images and the up to ~4 seconds of acoustical information processing, which at least initially is always not entered into your consciousness, but can even 3 seconds later. What you hear is not necessary what was said. Processing speech is a constructive process. I.e. as acoustical energy comes to your brain via your ears. You first parse it into words. If you display normal speech via a microphone on and oscilloscope there is a CONTINUOUS changing wave form - no breaks between the words. In fact with more sophisticated analysis (Fourier components separately displayed) you will discover that it is not just that the words "run together" but their components actually over lap. I. e. When you normally speak a sentence, part of the next word is being uttered before the end of the prior word has been completely produced. This is a major reason why machine recognition of normal speech is so difficult to achieve - why you must say each word separately with a pause between. The next unconscious step, after you have parsed the continuous stream of acoustical energy into words is to test each word to see if it matches with any already in your "lexicon." There you will find how it can be used in sentences (play the role of verb, noun, adverb, adjective, etc.) but you make no immediate decision as to which it is. If the first word was "moon" and you have no "context" yet, the lexicon will tell you that most likely it is a noun, not the somewhat vulgar verb. Note that the lexicon only contains the word stems, in most cases, but irregular verbs do have separate entries. I. e. swim & swam are both listed separately but fart & farted are not. As a young person builds his lexcon and may not have yet made the separate entry for the past tense of swim, so will tell his dad: "Today I swimed the full length of the pool!" His dad will correct him and soon swam will be an entry in his lexicon. All this, and much more, I will not bore you with, is all unconsciously done - I will just note that in the unconscious process of constructively building some sentence that the speaker's possible different sentence stimulated you carry along in parallel in the constructive processes a rapidly growing "tree" of possible sentences. This many branched "sentence tree" can be come too large for short term memory and you will "lob -off" some low probability branches all still unconsciously before you consciously hear the sentence you constructed - not necessary the one the speaker uttered. At the end I'll give, withour helping punctuation or conjunctions, an example of "erroneous lopping" but to come back to the point about why we have S-time sense: The neural activity with all this unconscious processing last for several seconds even after becoming conscious of the sentence you constructed; but If you are concentrating hard on some other task, or at a cocktail party, hearing many sentences being spoken in addition to the one you are "following" (paying attention to) you can "switch attention" to one of the other speakers who mentioned your name - I.e. "replay" the fully sentence that speaker uttered about you, from this still existing neural activity. Thus, the very recent "past" still "lives" in residual unconscious neural processes and can be made to exist "now" in your conscious awareness. Hence humans do have some past s-existing briefly and some times can bring it into the consciousness of "now" but you are aware it is form the recent past. The past more than a few seconds old does not even s-exist - it can only be remembered. I.e. we are "built" to be able to have experiences "now" from the very recent past and extend that concept of a real s-past for years even though the more than a few seconds past can only be remembered, not experienced in our now. To understand more about this unconscious processing, read about "dichotic listening" experiments. For example, what you understand an ambiguous word to mean in sentence you are paying attention to, can be strongly influenced by what the meaning of that word was in an unattended sentence you were simultaneously unconsciously processing in a sentence in which the meaning was not ambiguous. Consciousness is a "serial process" but most of the brain's activity is a few dozen of parallel processes than can separately enter consciousness and many thousands of brain processes that can not - like adjusting stomach acidity as you eat. Below is the erroneously "lopped" sentence I promised. These badly lopped sentences are called "garden path" sentences. The horse raced thru both the barn and the puddle behind it the flooding lake had made swam ;but the older horse just walked there to drink. I.e. there is a long participle phase inserted between horse and swam which is the verb of the simple sentence 'The horse swam." telling which horse swam. Hint: After you can't make sense of this perfectly good sentence, pretend you will "reply" to quote my text and see some more text that is invisible now as it is colored white.
Einstein did not invent or introduce spacetime, Minkowski did, I think around 1908. At the time it was a flat 4d mathematical model to better explain special relativity, at least I believe that is what Minkowski intended. Most easily accessible accounts seem to be influenced by the interpretation of those presenting them and there are few historical accounts that deal with Spacetime itself as anything more than a mathematical model. We sometimes tend to confuse what is being described (gravity) with the description (a 4D spacetime architecture). Einstein did adapt the math to explain gravity in general relativity, in the process it lost its flat (Minkowski) SR associated origin and became what is referred to as curved. There was no need for Einstein to explain the math beyond first accepting Minkowski's model for SR and then adapting that to a form, that could be used to describe gravity. Those who understood the math at the time could follow the changes without an explanation by Einstein. Though there was significant debate about the implications... If your question is in reference to what the word spacetime has come to mean today.., that is a modern interpretation. I don't believe that Einstein thought of spacetime as anything other than a mathematical model describing the interaction of gravitationally significant masses. It is sometimes hard to get a clear picture of what Einstein thought about some of the modern interpretations.., because they are modern.
No problem. But everything to do with time is to do with motion. The gizmo that "stops time" actually stops motion. A year. We might "time" it using a clock. But all we're really doing is comparing one motion with another. I'm paying attention to what's being measured. It isn't time flowing.
If you say heat exists then you must admit that all forms of energy "exist", tangible or not. Electricity exists. Gravity exists. PV "exists". And while temperature doesn't "exist" (not from this statement alone), nRT does "exist". All radiation "exists" therefore light exists. EMR exists. But now to the point: Plank's constant does not exist therefore since E = hf then frequency must exist. However, cycles are in nepers, therefore 1/t must exist. It remains to be proven then, that if heat exists, time does not exist even though you've accepted that its reciprocal does. Whether or not it's accurate to say one "moves through time", I would say so only loosely. More accurate is to say we move through space "with respect to time". This introduces, as above, the physical meaning of the reciprocal of time, and, more to the point, the meaning of the derivative of something with respect to time. Finally, to say "time does not exist" you would have to explain how something which exists could possibly be differentiable by something which does not exist, given that we agree that the rate of that thing exists, which I think you've accepted. It isn't like a lot of things. But unlike everything else, time and space are "alike" in that they form a complementary pair in the Lorentz rotation. That's a crucial piece of information, that and the "existence" of rates. That reduces this to semantics and epistemics. For example, define "hold". And notice the "in hold" objects are at rest with the reference frame. So motion "existing" is only applicable if you include the cases for motion "not existing". That is, time elapses in a frame regardless of what happens or doesn't happen in that frame--regardless of what does or doesn't exist there. Finally, whether or not you can perceive something can attest to its existence but not its inexistence. You cannot perceive X-rays but ones aimed at you by the radiologist are there. Here the issue is that the human brain is wired for perception in the manner most economical and practical for survival. An acute awareness of time would be a distraction which could interfere with alertness against predators. That being said, only a lunatic would claim that, in the absence of all stimulation, time is not perceptible. Indeed the human brain is wired to perceive time though obviously not with accuracy. Musicians, for example, placed in a sensory deprivation chamber, can count seconds quite accurately. Other people do this naturally when walking or jogging. The military teaches how to march in cadence, which can be done virtually, without any motion, by closing your eyes and imagining it. You can measure time fairly well this way. Athletes and dancers are famous for their sense of time. I once watched an F/A-18 pilot on a flight simulator; he took off, looped, at just as he got WOW (weight on wheels) he opened his eyes. This gets into the instincts of gamers, first pinball wizards, and hence Tommy.
I've said previously that energy exists. Some people say it's just an attribute, I say it's something real, that matter is made of it, and it's fundamental. Light certainly exists. I'm sorry, you've confused me. Planck's constant exists. I've said time exists like heat exists, and that a hundred years will kill you just as surely as a hundred degrees C. But I've also said time isn't something that flows or through which you can move. And that I can show you space and motion, but nobody can show you time. So it isn't empirical and fundamental like space or energy. The inference is that you don't need time to have motion, you need motion to have time. I would say not at all. See the OP of the time travel is science fiction thread. We "move forward through time" by not moving whilst everything else does. I don't think there's much wrong with that. But don't forget that when you "time" the motion through space all you're really doing is comparing it against how many times a cog goes round inside a clock. I've said time exists like heat exists. And you can't literally travel through time just as you can't literally climb to a higher temperature. One's a cumulative measure of motion, the other is an average measure. To be honest I think space and motion make a better pair. The maximum rate of motion is c, so when you move fast through space, your macroscopic motion necessarily reduces the rate of your internal microscopic motion, and the result is what we call time dilation. Yes, and semantics means meaning. It reduces to understanding. I refute that. I can show you space and motion. It's empirical, it's there. You can't show me time. I can take photographs with X-rays. We all know what they are, and that they exist. We cannot say the same thing about time. No. The issue is that the human brain is wired to believe what it was taught when it was a kid. And it can't let go of conviction, even when there is no evidence to support that conviction. So you can emulate a clock. It all comes back to what does a clock really do? Open up a clock, and look at what it does. It clocks up some kind of regular cyclical motion. It isn't some gas-meter gizmo with time flowing through it instead of gas. It doesn't measure the passage of time. What it really measures is motion. And that's what this is all about: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942
I have shown you time. Remember my MD's Box? A light sphere was emitted at t=0. The box moved along the x axis a specific distance, and the light sphere had a specific radius at every point in time. But look when the light sphere contacted the z receiver?? Have you figured out what's happening yet? Something you wish to refute? Bottom line is it takes .65 seconds to reach the z receiver. It takes .65 seconds of TIME for light to reach the z receiver. If you doubt that please explain, in detail, of course. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
