What is time?

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Michael 345, Nov 14, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,308
    So I request YOU explain and you refer me, without even a link, to Read up on "relativity of simultaneity"

    Not sure how many hits such a Google would throw up so will pass

    Decided not to pass and clicked on the first link thrown up

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

    Of course two observers are going to view a event occuring at different NOWs depending on their RELATIVE positions

    They can also have different views of something and when asked to give a description provide two completely different descriptions. Why? Well one was looking at the front and one at the back

    If there is not ONE single NOW for the entire Universe that would mean parts of the Universe are either operating in the future or in the past

    Think of the Universe as a extremely complex watch, with billions of cogs. All cogs are in operation due to being linked. Some cogs, large, complete a rotation every 10 years and move to slow to register. Small cogs rotate fast almost blurring their movement. But all cogs do move

    Lags in NOWs are dependent on the speed of light transmitting the information

    Lags in cog movement depend on the speed of the deformation of the cog material

    If you consider there is NOT a Universal NOW you should concede parts of the Universe operate in the future and parts in the past

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,308
    More correctly known as AGE, which is the arbitrary marking of a NOW to another arbitrary NOW and give the period between a arbitrary name

    A POSITION in a 3 dimensional space with a arbitrary tag to indicate the NOW in which it occurred

    Objective ones being......?

    Have not seen any laying about. What equipment do I need to search for TIME?
    Never detected TIME.

    How does the body do so? TIME detection senses were not part of anatomy classes. No disease was mentioned in which patients had a unable to detect TIME

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,308
    QUOTE="James R, post: 3613533, member: 4402"]and is measured with clocks of various types[/QUOTE]

    The units for the measurement of time have been REDEFINED to arrive at a consensus of the measurement

    This has been done for the purpose of synchronisation, not to improve the accuracy, as in the speed of light where the accuracy of the speed has been improved with improved equipment

    No equipment detects TIME. Clocks do as they are told and measure time, once we tell them what the measurement is in the first place

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,574
    No.

    The age of something is a measure of how long it has existed. That is, age is a period of time.

    It's quite obtuse to claim that there is no time and at the same time try to talk about age.

    Time is not arbitrary. If you think it is, then tell me why you don't remember tomorrow.

    Clearly you weren't listening, so I will repeat. It seems like you're asking for a detailed account of how time works, but it is not clear what you want to hear about, so I will wait for your clarification before expanding.

    You have the equipment. It's called a brain. You only need to turn it on.

    Do you wear a watch?

    We humans have these things called eyes. We also have brains and memory and lots of other senses.

    They didn't cover the brain in your anatomy classes? Weird.

    You haven't read enough Oliver Sacks.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,574
    No.

    Usually a relative velocity is what is required.

    You're on the right track. We're talking about different frames of reference, but not in the same way you're thinking of.

    The future and the past vary for different observers. There is no universal time frame. An event that has happened in your past might still lie in my future, conceptually. And note that I'm not talking about two similar events here; I'm talking about exactly the same single event.

    Not at all.

    But you need to understand what a reference frame is in relativity to see why this is wrong.

    Different observers do not agree on which events are in the future and which are in the past.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,574
    Correct. The units we use to measure time are arbitrary, just like the units we use to measure distances and temperatures and electric currents. But saying that doesn't mean that the units don't describe real physical quantities.

    No. The second has been redefined a number of times, but the definition has only been tweaked a tiny bit recently. The definition that is adopted at any time is adopted to improve accuracy, contrary to what you claim.

    Well done. You just contradicted yourself in consecutive sentences.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,574
    From another thread, but equally relevant here:
    ----

    What are the "properties" of distance, momentum, or mass, or electric current, or luminosity, or temperature, or any other physical quantity you might care to name? None of these things is different from time, in terms of having "properties". Yet all of these things are useful physical concepts, just like time.

    If you're going to make the silly argument that time doesn't exist because it doesn't have any "properties", then you'll quickly find yourself obliged to deny the existence of every useful physical quantity.
    ....
    Explain to me how gravity and mass, in and of themselves, are detectable.

    Like every physical quantity, we can only use these concepts to explain experimental or other observations of the natural world.

    You can't point to a rock and say "There's mass! I have detected mass." Mass is just a number that you associate with the rock. It's a useful measure that tells you something about how the rock will behave if you do certain experiments on it. But it's not something that is innate to the rock. (Nor does it have any "properties", in the same sense you demand for "time".)

    "Gravity" is even more abstract than "mass" in this regard.

    It is a basic fact of existence (an observation that everybody makes every moment of their day) that events can occur in the same place and yet be distinguishable. Thus, it follows that there must be something that separates those events that cannot be position in space. We call the required thing "time". To deny its existence, or the need for it, is obtuse.
    ....
    You can't stop time from existing merely by renaming it to "age" or something. Tacitly, you keep admitting that time exists, despite your silly claim to the contrary.
    ....
    Change presupposes time. Motion presupposes time.
    ....
    Age is simply a measure of a period of time, or a time interval. If your age is 5 years, it only means that the period between your birth and the present has a duration in time of 5 years.

    People do not use the words "age" and "time" synonymously. There is no confusion. Well, you might be confused, but nobody else is.
    ....
    You seem to be confusing units of measures with the thing they are measures of. That's been true throughout this thread, with you.

    ----

    I explained all these things to you in the previous thread, Michael 345, yet here you are acting as if you haven't read any of it. Why is that?
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,619
    Me: 2+2=5, in my opinion.
    You: 2+2=4. This is fact.
    Me: Prove to me that 2+2=4.
    You: 2+2 is 4, why would you believe it's 5?
    Me: You can't prove 2+2=4. You can't answer the question.
    You: Read a book on arithmetic.
    Me: I could Google arithmetic, but I'd rather you teach me arithmetic, here, now.
    You: Why are you making assertions about arithmetic, when you don't know arithmetic?

    We're done with this, Michael.
     
  12. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,057
    He is locked in and won't listen to anyone. His belief seems to be, we only experience the moment, therefore there is no time. Not logical and silly but since he believes it, it must be true...
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,574
    You might be done with this, Dave. I thought I was done with it in the first thread. But Michael felt for some reason that he had to start a whole new thread to repeat the same posts over again, apparently. I don't expect him to be done any time soon.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,574
    Fairly regularly he lets his guard slip and uses the language of time in his posts, even without realising he is doing it.

    Then there's his silly attempt to replace the word "time" with the word "age", while simultaneously denying that time exists and steadfastly holding to the position that age is not a time period, for some unexplained reason.
     
  15. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,057
    Ageed. This one I saw in your reply (I stopped reading his repetitious posts) gave me a chuckle:

    "No equipment detects TIME. Clocks do as they are told and measure time..."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,619
    He'll surely keep talking about his idea of time - as his is really a semantic issue - with no real resolution...

    - but he can't talk about his universal "now" without coming face-to-face with relativity of simultaneity. That's a hard stop.
     
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,308
    Don't follow
    But seems you did not follow that I did Google your suggestion
    Oh well
    Not so
    My belief does not bring anything into existence
    That ability is noted in some religious sects
    My belief comes from reading physicist far higher up the totem pole than myself
    Google 'does time exist' and note/read some of the theories put forward by those who work in the field
    My recollection is that you suggested start a thread to find out WHAT TIME IS
    Then there's his silly attempt to replace the word "time" with the word "age",

    Incorrect. The two words are not interchangeable and never claimed such

    holding to the position that age is not a time period, for some unexplained reason

    In everyday language age is the period something exist. Since the atoms in any stuff of the Universe are in constant movement it can be put forward existence, at the atomic level, last what 1 Plank moment?

    At Universe level same same due to expansion

    Way to go

    "No equipment detects TIME. Clocks do as they are told and measure time..."

    distort the post. The complete paragraph reads as below

    No equipment detects TIME. Clocks do as they are told and measure time, once we tell them what the measurement is in the first place

    Not sharp eyed enough to note the following
    No equipment detects TIME ie TIME in capitals refers to the abstract concept about TIME

    Clocks do as they are told and measure time, once we tell them what the measurement is in the first place ie note time in this sentence is in lower case, meaning time as used in everyday language.
    WE tell the clock what duration 1 second/ minute/ hour are THEN what do clocks do? Suprise suprise measure what we HAVE ALREADY TOLD THEM TO MEASURE

    Brilliant

    Anyway

    I will be taking a break due to something more important needing my attention. I will continue to follow science releases about TIME. Whether I post or provide a link depends on evaluation of the release

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    457
    I don’t see any contradiction at all. In RoS observers receive effects of a cause/event at different Universal “Now” Moments(UNM) because of their different distances from the event causing different travel times to reach them. What has that got to do with a UNM?

    IMO, a UNM is only when something happens here now there is something happening everywhere in the same UNM at all locations. So the UN is when the event occurs over there “now”, I’m not aware of it here “now” but something happened here when that happened there. Something happened at both or all locations in the same UNM even though the events were separated.

    ?
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,619
    No. You're talking about signal delay. Relativity of simultaneity is still a thing even after accounting for signal delay.
    I made this mistake too, originally. It's a tough concept.
     
    BdS likes this.
  20. JJM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    355
    time, entropy
     
  21. foghorn Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    387
    I found the following link useful. https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teac...l_relativity_rel_sim/index.html#without_light

    Quotes from link
    My bold.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2020
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,574
    A time period something exists. But we've already been through this.
     
  23. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    457
    From a different perspective, take this image of the universes timeline from the Big Bang to current.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg

    Image is from this big bang wiki article.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

    The time axis is a perfect example of how the universe transversed through the UNM. The only thing that physically exists is the end of the timeline the current UNM, the current configuration of the universe. Each slice of the timeline represents a previous/past UNM. You see how something happened simultaneously/synchronised everywhere in the universe for each UNM slice?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page