The Illusion Of Time - The Fabric Of The Cosmos

You can always tell the crank by their love of ignorance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hint: you're full of crap. You're making a fool of yourself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This relation neither suggests either a direction of travel (because the alien bicycle v could be approaching or receding our galaxy), nor anything like a sign for the interval of time dilation that would alter the direction of the arrow of time.

So it would seem; your comment is noted. My plan this time is to show what is wrong with the Lorentz transformation of time. The transformation for space seems to be OK, as far as it goes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The direction is hidden in the formula, once we talk of relative velocity, the direction is there. You are probably talking about a very specific case of v and -v. It is very legitimate to describe the motion (Say, Velocity Vector) of two frames in third frame, in that case direction is crucial to ascertain the relative speed.


A Green Man riding the interstellar bi-cycle can never experience past as there is no time reversal associated with time dilation (relative Motion based).

 

Good plan. LOL. You might try to convince somebody other than Id.

 

Then we seem to agree.

 

We've done this before, and I owe you a more complete explanation about why Minkowski's version of relativity makes me itch.

Before joining sci forums, I read Sean Carroll's 'particle at the end of the universe', as well as 'from eternity to here'. I really liked the first, but the second book fell flat with the exception of Sean's explanation of Minkowski's light cones, which to my discredit I had not previously understood since reading Taylor and Wheeler's 'space time physics' when it was one of my freshman physics textbooks in 1971.

Now I finally understood that the light cones are a graphic representation of what events can be observed as well as which events cannot be observed from a particular point of spacetime at its singular vertex (which represents the instant of NOW and its spatial conjugate HERE), as such events are viewed from the past (lower light cone) or the future (upper light cone). Each light cone is a graphic representation of the history of the universe as seen from a single point in spacetime,

The cone volumes represent the POSSIBILITY of viewing light from an event which intersects the light cone world lines of the observer, provided the observer may connect with it by means of traveling at or near the speed of light in order to do so.

Other light cone vertices from other points in spacetime must be separate from the first one if they are separated by a distance, however small that distance might be. Imagine a friend of yours holding a flashlight that is pointed in a direction away from you, and you cannot see either the beam of his flashlight or his means of pulsing the beam off or on. For the purposes of this illustration, you could be standing as close as shoulder to shoulder. Once the pulse of light leaves the region of space you are in, neither of you will ever see any part of that beam until or unless the beam reflects from something.

Are you with me so far, or is my understanding of light cones deficient in some manner? There are only two choices here. "You're a crank lame retard". Will be ignored. Don't give the computer to your similarly gifted youngest offspring to answer me in your place with spelling to match their Theodore Geisel level of literacy. I have noted huge disparities in the relative quality of your posts. If you are high, do us the courtesy of responding somewhere else.

Iff you feel you are unable to do this, an answer from paddoboy would suffice.

 

Good. Minkowsk's light cones are flawed from the start because a point in spacetime isn't fixed or nailed in place, even if it were at the center of a black hole. As a description of anything useful, even geometrically, it fails from the start. Like velocities, positions in a coordinate system must likewise have a reference. If you wish that reference to be a particle of bound energy, that's fine, but even this is dynamic, not a static Euclidean solid. Particularly with respect to time, and I'm not talking about time in the limited sense of the bulk transport of energy or matter at, or slightly less than the speed of light respectively.

If time itself were as limited as the speed of light, it would not even be possible for us to measure the time needed for light to traverse a fixed amount of 'space'. Light propagation would appear, for all intents and purposes, to be instant in Euclidean space. Time and c sharing a 1-to-1 relationship would mean that light cones would degenerate into vertical lines. Time "stops" for anything traveling at c, remember? By subjecting time to the same kind of limit, the need for a second observer is entirely eliminated and the universe becomes incomprehensible. This is the unity of time and space Minkowski sought when he posited a hard Pythaorean and complex number relationship between space contraction and time dilation. To do this he needed another invariant quantity, the "interval" to replace and complicate the idea that the speed of light was relativity's only true invariant.

Hilbert may have loved his friend Minkowski, but the fact is, Minkowski is almost single-handedly responsible for keeping relativity physics operating at the level of understanding of nineteenth century science. Because it made no real sense, people just ignored the inconsistencies and moved on to the Standard Model, for which physics relating to time was not even a consideration.

 

It's a pity so much of what you say and evangelise is as stupid as claiming that everyone has experiences the same now.
So out of touch and delusional, but explaining why you seem to despise most of our reputable cosmologists/physicists like Thorne, Greene and others with such vim and vigour.

Is it the fact that these notable physicists, which you derisively decry with remarks such as "pop science presenters" or such, are there due to their achievements, and are qualified, and are recognised in academia as giants in their field. Is it envy, jealousy and revenge that these notables have achieved something, while you linger forever in oblivion on a minor science forum.

[1]Time is real...Time stops everything from happening together. Space is real.....Space stops everything from being together.
They both exist, and although not a physical entity one can grab with your hand, they exist and are experienced by all.
The Interesting probable question, is is time fundamental?
In asking that, we should realize that time [as we know it] started at the BB, along with the evolution of space [as we know it] Henceforth to be known as spacetime.
[2]Time travel is not forbidden by the laws of physics and GR, in fact GR gives solutions as to how it maybe achieved.
[3]There is no universal now, as Aid has said, and to say there is, is totally wrong in light of what we know.. The only relevant constant is "c"

 

Thorne is permanently pardoned. One prediction of his panned out, and I apologized for my mistake already. You will not hear another squeak from me about any of Thorne's ideas in this forum or anywhere else ever again. I hope that Greene is always remembered for his very flawed bicycle riding alien video. It isn't me who makes him appear foolish.

"everything" here meaning: matter and energy, or bound energy and energy; "here" means not a damn thing. You can't show me "here". It does not physically exist. You can show me where a particle is. You can show me where a planet, or a spot on a planet is in a single instant. You can show me where the center of a black hole is. But none of these are qualified as a preferred reference frame, are they? There's no such thing. Count the number of wavelengths in three dimensions to "here"; they can all Doppler shift, and wherever "here" was moves. Two observers in different reference frames can never agree on where "here" is using tools made of matter or energy.

"space stops everything from being together": you mean, "from being all at the same place at the same TIME, don't you, paddoboy?

Time does NOT stop everything from happening at the same time. In actual fact, an infinite number of things are, right NOW, happening. Some of those events involved entangled particles, which most definitely have become entangled and remain entangled beyond a single instant of time, and regardless of how they are removed from each other in space. The connection between them is a minimum 10K times the speed of light faster than any prediction of relativity. However, two observers in different reference frames CAN AGREE on what the instant of NOW is. There is a very good reason, time is more fundamental than space. Time intervals may dilate everywhere differently, but NOW is as invariant as c. It's the counterpart invariant physical parameter that allows c to be invariant.

Space does NOT stop everything from being together. It doesn't even stop bosons from occupying the same space as other bosons, or fermions. QFT insists on treating all fundamental particles as though they have NO dimensions at all, in actual fact. This may be convenient for some calculations, but if this were so, there would be NO LIMIT to the sizes of atomic nuclei, would there? Those atomic number limits exist because the speed of light is not infinite, and at some point QFT either breaks down completely or shifts paradigms in order to accommodate predictions for heavier nuclei. The Standard Model is imperfect in this respect.

Your science, when and where it concerns time, space, and entanglement just seems to be full of holes, paddoboy. You must understand its limitations as well as its strengths if you wish to contribute to extending it.

 

Except the simple fact that you like "the god" are not qualified or credentialled enough to give any forthright opinion on the matter.

??? Simply put, there is no universal now, know matter how unrealistically complicated you try and make it sound.
Space and time are not absolute.

No, pretty well all I have said, is what all the credentialled experts have said also, and a lot has been verified experimentally and observationally.
You'll get nowhere sticking out in the doldrums with the likes of "the god" rajesh, constant theorist, jcc etc.........except probably that nice inner glow that you have thought for yourself, albeit coming up with nonsense.
I'd rather stand on the shoulders of giants thank you.

 

But HOW does time stop everything; pad? How? Think man.

What property does time have that it can stop any kind of movement?

 

It,s 13.83 billion years between you and the BB.
Think man!
or alternatively buzz off!

 

What has 14 billion years to do with time having any consequence towards this time line?

 

Think man!

Here is a link with Sean Carroll discussing time.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/

and Carl Sagan
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/Sagan-Time-Travel.html
"Time travel into the indefinite future is consistent with the laws of nature."

 

Where was this quoted from?

Actually it doesn't matter.

Time cannot influence energy and/or matter.

 

You are totally entitled to that opinion.

That's what they taught us, and it is not entirely wrong. THINK about it, paddoboy. Say you are doing physics (not a stretch at all) and you are going to measure the speed of light from your frame of reference, using a timer and a flashlight. If it were not for the instant of "NOW", there would be no real meaning to the statement: "I turn on the light pulse and start the timer." You may perform the same experiment in any reference frame you wish, and the result will be the same because the speed of light is invariant. This experiment literally cannot be performed anywhere without the idea that "NOW" is identical in all inertial reference frames, even if the rate at which time proceeds and everything slower than the rate at which LIGHT PROPAGATES is actually different. The two effects go hand in hand, but time itself is much grainier than anything the fields responsible for propagating the light pulse are doing, and relativity alone does not capture this.

We have discussed this before. "Credential experts" does not necessarily mean they understand any more science than you do. They publish their work. You read it. If you understand what they wrote sufficiently, you might even be able to reproduce their results. All this is good science. One unreproduceable result or falsification invalidates those credentials and anything those experts have written about it. Or perhaps it really should.

I have credentials. I contributed to satellite telecommunications and advanced the state of the art. I got the job because I had credentials. I stayed employed at Comsat Labs for 22 years because everything and anything I touched worked. I do not apologize for the fact that I did not obtain work doing physics. The way physics has been done during the time I did my engineering work is something I probably would not have been able to tolerate. If you have to deal with "credentialed experts" unwilling, for whatever reason, to question what they have been taught, that's too bad. It didn't work that way where I was employed. Ideas for better coding schemes were developed by theoreticians and then thoroughly tested by those qualified to perform such tests. If the test results didn't make sense, we either figured out what went wrong and repeated the test, or found another approach. This is how science is done.

 

Do you know what you are babbling about?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes

Because I thought many years ago , about duration.

 

And you to yours.

It is entirely right and why theoretically time travel at least to the future is possible although less confidence in time travel to the past.

Of course it does!
You yourself on the basics most probably understand more than I, but for some reason, your interpretations are askew.
But don't lose heart...Tesla obviously was also a great scientist until he went a bit cuckoo....Fred Hoyle was another 'great"but could not let go of his baby even in the face of evidence supporting the BB.

That's great! Just a pity your interpretation on things are a bit off.
But it doesn't change the fact re other "would be's if they could be's" like "the god"rajesh, jcc, instant theorist, river, who all come here, rambling on, making up word salad contributions, or just plain wrong facts, and all have no credentials at all.