Time is NOT the 4th dimension...

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by stateofmind, Sep 28, 2011.

  1. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    Hi Maxila.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Again I am sorely pressed for time, so I must be brief....

    As far as the concept of 'duration' is concerned, I try to point out that it is only a philosophical 'continuity of existence' thinking about before and after etc. Purely abstract, not physically dependent on any particular universes/peoples' 'time/timing' processes/rates. The only 'connection' that can be made (by us, abstractly) between the two concepts, time and duration, is when we actually apply observed dynamical states/rates etc and compare same such that we effectively are 'parsing' some 'continuous existence duration' into SEGMENTS of specifics associated with specific rate/comparisons which we call 'time/timing'. That's all, really. The sense of duration 'exists' in our consciousness irrespective of change/process, even in their absence (this 'gedanken' situation is purely philosophical too, since it is debatable that we could think about anything at all in the absence of all motion/state change!).

    That's all I have time for today, Maxila, everyone. Good luck and good thinking!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    Whats more elementary, the map and territory or the paper and ink?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Maxila Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    When viewing a change in position of energy as fundamental, and time as the organizational frame work to describe it, you can also use entropy to support reversing time is impossible. In other words reserving a energy change of position in a system would result in increased entropy of the system, therefore it (energy) was not truly *reversed. (*There is a theoretical exception in the form of a "big bounce type theory", I am not advocating, just mentioning it.)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Maxila Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    The irony is, even for the argument (sense or feeling), that a duration can exist absent a change position of energy, requires the change of position of energy to exist, and be made (brain waves and function).
     
  8. Maxila Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    The map (the data) can exist in your mind, the physical things (the specific energy they are comprised of) does not.
     
  9. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    True! lol

    I agree, as this excerpt from the same post indicates...

    Which is why 'duration/existence' concept can only ever be a philosophical concept which we can imagine might obtain even in our absence or absence of our/other thought/energy-space processes/dynamics etc? As distinct from 'time/timing' rates we associate with processes/dynamics, including thought and observational phenomena.

    Your scientific integrity and perseverance in adhering to the observable reality is much appreciated, mate. Keep up the good work and interesting observations, Maxila!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    PS: I just came in to check for typos etc. Can't stay. Cheers!
     
  10. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Undefined

    No, the mathematical construct describes the real behavior of the Universe. It is a very very accurate map of the reality that is spacetime and allows accurate predictions of things we don't yet know. It is an actual "mechanism" built into whatever reality is that we make maps of in order to understand how reality behaves. Only those lost in their maps think time is dependent on events to exist, our experience of duration can be subjective, but it is also objectively real. They've lost sight of the difference between the map(subjective duration)and the real thing that the map is modeled after(objectively real duration). Time and space exist, but they're not so sure you do. And they don't depend on your ability to measure them, and that is all a lack of events means, it doesn't affect time's existence. Yes, we experience duration subjectively, but many a irreversible chemical or fusion event takes time to occur that exists objectively as well. Our duration experience has no effect on those events and they continue whether we watch them or not, experiencing duration and events totally unmeasured by anyone. It takes time to fuse gigatons of hydrogen into iron, yet stars blow up all the time, who created that time in his mind? What mind put that overlay on an event that was over before the Earth was born?

    Subjective philosophical duration is a map of objectively real, physical time passing, constructed by the brain/intellect to interface with perceived reality. Physical time does not require you to function as it has been for billions of objectively evidenced years(a measure of duration based on the orbit of a planet full of self important philosophers. evidently). The iron skillet I cook my cornbread in started out as hydrogen and helium(with a trace of lithium), that gas compressed and ignited in a large star, as fusion proceeded all the elements on the periodic chart up to iron were produced and burned. When iron began to form it absorbed energy fell to the core and formed an iron ball. Once that ball reached a critical mass the core collapses and the resulting shockwaves sent the iron in my skillet out into interstellar space as dust. All of this was billions of years before our solar system formed from some of the metal enriched gas. Yet you claim time and it's passing is a philosophical construct and doesn't really exist. I give up, you are living on a different planet, lost in the weeds, maybe a few bricks short of a hod.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    Hi Grumpy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Everything you describe there is PROCESSING energy-space. Period.

    Fusion etc can be UNDONE (ie, reversed) by violent deconstructive processes in the jets/accretion discs of galaxies/black holes etc. which turn the matter into pure radiation etc energy and elementary particles like electrons/positrons/quark-gluon plasma etc. So, when the matter/processes you allude to are undone (ie reversed) the 'time' is NOT undone/reversed, is it? Only the energy-space processes have changed again. Period.

    So you see, while duration is a concept purely philosophical, the 'time' aspect is NOT philosophical....it is a 'mathematical relativity/dimension' used by US observers to make sense of it all regardless of which way the changes (energy-space processes) occur, one way (aggregation etc) or the opposite way (de-aggregation etc).

    See? Time is not reversed, only the processes are. Duration does not exist, but our philosophical sense of it, as in temporal 'continuity/direction' from 'earlier/start to later/stop' or 'fusion/reverse' etc etc, does.

    Drop the 'map and territory' stuff, and just think it through based on the essential reality which the above self-evident points make crystal clear.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Maxila Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    I said I wouldn’t reply however; I couldn’t help myself after seeing so many contradictions, and irrational arguments of evidence that disagrees with the argument being made?

    If you respect the scientific method, you’d take a hard look at your reasoning and its proof, to honestly evaluate what is provable evidence from innuendo. I quoted previously that Einstein said in his book that spacetime has no existence on its own while you argue it does? When talking of religious matters I expect to hear rationalized distortions of facts to be presented as a proof of point; however it is very hard to accept from people who are supposed to believe in the scientific method.
     
  13. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Undefined

    It may be inside a BH it all turns to Pansies in a field, but fusion products ARE NOT turned into hydrogen atoms by any process we can seen, even the most violent. In fact there is a bias for ever heavier elements being formed in the MOST violent processes like gold being the results of neutron star collisions. And if you take a bunch of hydrogen, fuse it to iron and then somehow unfuse it, you'll be missing a good bit of mass, it got turned into energy by the ratio of the square of the speed of light. If you try that with gold, you'll be missing a whole lot of your initial hydrogen because making atoms heavier than iron EATS energy, it doesn't create enough to do it on it's own. Cosmic rays are fusion products spit out of the most violent explosions, they are the highest energy particles extant, they are not stripped back to hydrogen nuclei, most are quite heavy. Fusion has areas that are non-reversible, time has a direction in these fusion reactions, and their very existence is solid evidence of the passage of the time needed for those fusion reactions to have occurred. Objectively real time.

    Maxila

    What I saw was you quoting something from someone else who SAID that Einstein's spacetime had no gravity. And that is wrong. And Einstein was talking about how spacetime is not a physical thing, it is a property of the Universe(a real property of the Universe), it is how the Universe behaves, it is the essence of what the Universe is, just like time is what makes duration within which events can occur(though the time exists whether events occur or not), space makes space where they can occur(though most of space is empty and does not cease to exist when there's nothing in it). It does not cause the events, it just regulates them(through Relativity)and provides the stage for the play of events(a stage that doesn't disappear if not in use). The Universe IS spacetime, plus contaminants.

    Coming from someone so enamored of their own delusion they deny the reality of time and space that's rich. Spacetime is what the Universe is(IE what the Universe is is well described by the map we call spacetime, spacetime describes how the Universe behaves), the events that happen within spacetime are not what make up the Universe itself, they just happen inside of it.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    The LHC collides heavy ions. Fluid-like jets of quark-gluon plasma exit the event centre and differentiate into all sorts of elementary particles like protons, neutrons, Kaons, Pions etc etc.

    And yes, the black hole interior contains all sorts of de-constructed matter, probably in the form of said quark-gluon plasma whose 'degeneracy pressure' probably prevents further collapse to the 'infinitely dense and zero volume' mathematical singularity which GR 'predicts'. Whatever deconstructed matter that escapes the BH's accretion disc probably also differentiates into various elementary particles once it leaves the immediate vicinity (this quark-gluon plasma and differentiation products also probably join pre-existing heavier nuclei (which escaped being deconstructed because they were too far from the event horizon/accretion disc processes)....and these are all components of the huge jets observed to leave 'active' galactic centre (BHs/cores structure/process).


    Therefore, please don't keep kneejerking, and insulting people who are pointing out the obvious reality to you. Please stop looking at the facts with biased interpretations and just look at the facts presented.

    The reality speaks for itself, as per the above LHC/other processes examples. The energy-space processes can go in reverse etc. Time does not reverse, since time is an abstract mathematical entity which WE use to model the dynamics of energy-space processes observed, whichever 'direction' the process takes at any one location/state of the continuing universal energy-space process.

    Insulting others because they disagree with your biased viewpoint does not help anyone, especially not science. Calm down and step away from your preconceived notions, just look again at the reality as it is.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Maxila Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    Your read into things what you want to see, instead of what is said.

    From Einstein’s book: ‘Relativity, the Special and the General Theory.’
    Page 155 under Appendix 5. Year 1952. The exact paragraph (I added the bold):

    He specifically said spacetime does not exist, and it shows the structure of the gravitational field; he also says there is no such thing as empty space (space absent a field). In other words spacetimes decribes (a structure) the energy in space, and space doesn't exist without a field (energy). [In the quote above: "There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field."] From this it is almost an axiom, and logical, to conclude that if space (spacetime) doesn't exist without energy (i.e. a field) than time doesn't too.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,216
    Neither. The map is constantly changing and the territory shifting. The attempt to draw requires time in execution. The most elementary is the concept that "change" from one state to another cannot physically happen "all at once" and "requires" time and time emerges (becomes measurable) during the changes of states.

    Example, Ice is not old water, ice is cold water. However the cooling and change from water to ice required time, because water cannot become instantly cold (it is a time consuming process). The reverse is true also. Time is only an aspect (dimension) of physical change, time exists only because a dynamic physical space continues to exist. An endless sequence of "nows", until it stops and now becomes endless itself. But it isn't causal or conscious so it is meaningless.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2013
  17. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Maxila

    Yes, spacetime does not exist as a physical structure(it does not physically exist), it exists as a property(structural quality)of the Universe(space/time field). Do you think that means I'm wrong? I think I am saying EXACTLY the same thing. Is your whole problem one of semantics and reading comprehension. Did'nt we go through this same thing earlier in the thread?

    As I have pointed out many times, there is no area that doesn't have both space and time within it(even in the absence of events), the space time field Einstein is talking about. That means time continues, and space exists, JUST LIKE I SAID. Events have no effect on the existence of that time/space field, though they do distort and dilate it. In fact time not only exists in the emptiest space, but space is least distorted in the absence of events, but you keep claiming that without events time(duration)does not exist, undefined that even space is an illusion. You're both simply wrong.

    No. He said it does not exist ON IT'S OWN, but existed as a structural quality of the spacetime field(IE the entire Universe).

    Or as I put in 310...

    "And Einstein was talking about how spacetime is not a physical thing, it is a property of the Universe(a real property of the Universe)."

    You read the first part of a complete thought from Einstein "Space-time does not claim existence", ignored the modifier "on it's own" and completely missed "a structural quality of the field." You got half a thought from this, I understand the whole thought in it's entirety.



    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2013
  18. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Undefined

    An unnatural state of affairs, and those particle soon degenerate to other particles and energy. We don't see them in most natural phenomena because they are so short lived. And the result is not to turn large hadrons into their energy equivalent of hydrogen atoms, so it is not a reversal of the fusion process, the effect you were claiming. So the fusion reaction is still a non-reversable process. Even if you can turn some mass back into it's equivalence in hydrogen atoms, you lose mass at every juncture.

    Einstein disagrees with you.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2013
  19. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    Hi Grumpy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Thanks for your polite response.

    In what way "unnatural"? The LHC is designed to mimic what the natural higher-energy-space PROCESSES which produced the so-called BB 'conditions' (from which BB Hypothesis you apparently 'construct' your own idea of 'time' from, and so label that as the 'beginning of time' and 'space' etc.).

    I also pointed out that it is quite natural for the black holes and active galactic centres to recycle energy-space into matter and back to energy-space again (and I also pointed out that the quark-gluon plasma states differentiate back to elementary particles like protons, neutrons, Kaons, Pions etc (that "etc" implying all the further decay products of the Kaons and Pions, ie, such as Muons, Gamma Rays, Neutrinos and electrons/positrons, the last of which ARE stable until again mutually annihilated in various energy-space processes)....so you just effectively said what I already pointed out.

    Your view of "unnatural" seems to be rooted in some partial/limited view of the whole picture/process across all epochs and regions of the universe as a whole.

    I on the other hand have no limitations in thinking about the PRIOR-to-BB-Hypothesis 'conditions' obtaining AS energy-space as such, before any matter comes into it. Hence my idea of 'time' is process in/of energy-space per se. Whatever EVOLVES during energy-space processes (matter, antimatter in elemental and more complex states) in any one region of energy-space conditions, or in any one epoch of evolutionary states, is neither here nor there fundamentally. The 'time' is an abstraction of 'ongoing process' overall, irrespective of what particular/local examples of processes you choose to study.

    See? Fusion, or any other NATURAL process, including MUTUAL ANNIHILATION of matter and antimatter, or deconstruction by BH/Galactic centre processes, is all part and parcel of the WHOLE RANGE of process/changes which cycle round and round over scales far beyond the reach of partial hypothetical views such as BB and other 'beginnings' scenarios. It is these limited 'beginnings' hypotheses which lead to these misunderstandings about 'time' as somehow 'real thing' in itself, rather than realizing that 'time' is an abstract notion WE bring to the observation via modeling of hypotheses and observations...all of which patently a-priori involve energy-space process, but not 'time' (until WE construct the mathematical modeling construct 'space-time').

    I understand where you are coming from, Grumpy; but 'time' as you think of it is not 'extant' on its own, it only arises with US when we model/compare serial events in processing energy-space RATES. The only requirement is that energy-space exists and processes at various rates in various states such as to produce the dynamics we observe/model/predict etc.

    Remember, GR 'predicts' infinite densities and singularities inside Black Holes; while you and I both know (I trust) that the more realistic view, based on the LHC and other processes which produce QUARK-GLUON plasma states of energy-space, is that the degeneracy pressure of such quark-gluon (and other possibly other more fundamental still) energy-space states likely can and do resist and so invalidate GR 'infinite collapse' hypotheses, and so all speculations about 'time stopping' and 'becoming spacelike' etc etc is just that, abstract MATHEMATICAL MODELING CONVENIENCES/ENTITIES which, in the case of black holes makes the GR view invalid, including the 'time' view. Only PROCESSING energy-space occurs....and everything else DERIVES from that, including matter, and abstractions like 'time' and 'models'.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Undefined

    The LHC does not mimic natural processes, it uses artificial methods to mimic the energy levels of early times after the Inflation, energy levels not seen in current processes EXCEPT(maybe)near an event horizon. It is an unnatural concentration into the microscopic so we can reach the energy levels of those times. Analogous to the difference between direct sunlight(natural process)and at the focus of a large magnifying glass(unnatural process). It's concentrating our effort so that what once was the temperature/energy density of all of space is brought about in single proton/proton collision or in the collision of streams of hadrons. We've long been working at temps comparable to the first second, but we have a problem getting much closer due to lightspeed limitations and dwindling returns on energy investment. We would need a ring the size of Saturn's orbit to reach the levels very close to that of the Big Bang(those of the Inflation era or just after), but we can get close enough to learn a lot. But whether everything we learn using this artificial method would apply when all of spacetime is at those energy levels is the question. There are sure to be interactions our single(or limited number)collision method does not address and the original energy level was in non-relativistic spacetime, not in masses very near lightspeed in two opposite directions leading to a collision, two very different conditions with their own differences. So, we use what we have, to do what we can and we keep picking at it 'til it yields.

    but it is an extant property of the Universe, just like space.

    "There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field.”

    Albert E.

    The field is spacetime. There is no such thing as a space(area)without the spacetime field(extant time and space, empty though they may be). Dude, you're just wrong according to Relativity and it's author.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    Saying there is no such thing as empty space is just wrong. You cant know something like that from being a living being on Earth, because we live in an area of space that is populated with energy and fields. Im not saying with certainty that there is an area of truly empty space, only that we cant know that yet. Claiming it is possible or impossible is not sound science since none can prove it.

    My opinion of if you can get a truly empty area of space is yes, but I can definitely bring up contradicting views of why you cant have empty space and vice versa.

    Sounds like you're arguing for Aether theory?

    You cant have a field without energy? or where is your field originating?

    But, relativity is just a theory, a very good one... We're talking about nature or the physical not theory. And I believe AE would agree or consider what we're saying, because he had the ability to understand such things. And as good as relativity is, its not the end of physics, only the beginning...


    Space = Space
    Time = energy doing its thing in space
    Simple and to the point is what we're saying and its an awesome attempt to try get to the fundamentals of space-time. A progression in understanding IMO, even if its wrong or right we're are moving in the right direction, because we are discussing the fundamentals without vague or extravagant speech that nobody can understand.

    What are you saying?
    Space = ?
    Time = ?
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2013
  22. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,749
    Because the universe is not devoid of matter and gravity propagates at the speed of light, space can't be field-free. Furthermore, radiation is propagating in all directions, so space is not free of the effects of matter or energy.
     
  23. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    The universe is a size that the light from the big bang has traveled in the age you claim the universe to be. We freeze it there and put it in a nut shell, everything in the nutshell is the universe. Even though the nut shell encapsulates all the energy in the universe in that amount of space, what is located outside the shell? Nothing? empty space? who knows? its a question we cant answer... how do you put a limit to the "amount" of space available? But, I'd be in the camp that says there can be a limit to the amount of energy occupying space... where it seems that space is infinite but energy can be finite.
     

Share This Page