DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Black holes do not exist
- Thread starter Luchito
- Start date
If you mean time, as in a non scientific term as you indicated, duration age, age as used in everyday language is not referring to fundamental TIME
Can you please explain why no evidence of TIME existing has been forthcoming?
So many are claiming its existence
If it was on a lab bench for examination, or a piece of equipment available to detect TIME where is the lump on the bench? or the detection apparatus?
Could it be
- lump - does not exist
- apparatus - does not exist
- list of characteristics - does not exist
- list of properties - does not exist
Coffee due
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Can you show me a lump of length?If you mean time, as in a non scientific term as you indicated, duration age, age as used in everyday language is not referring to fundamental TIME
Can you please explain why no evidence of TIME existing has been forthcoming?
So many are claiming its existence
If it was on a lab bench for examination, or a piece of equipment available to detect TIME where is the lump on the bench? or the detection apparatus?
Could it be
Starting to see a pattern here
- lump - does not exist
- apparatus - does not exist
- list of characteristics - does not exist
- list of properties - does not exist
Coffee due
No you can't. All you can show me is something having a length that you can measure as one of its spatial dimensions. In order to exist, that same thing has to persist for a length of time, which again you can measure. Possession of spatial dimensions alone is insufficient for the existence of an entity. It must also exist for a non-zero duration. A duration is a period of time. Which can be measured, just as length can be measured.
This may seem trivial for everyday objects, but it is not for scientists that deal with species that are transient, with limited lifetimes that need to be characterised.
It does to all extents, in every situation we have looked at. There are, so far, no exceptions.
Relativity is about perspective .
Where you are , relative to another point of observation . 180degrees perspective to us , is seeing the blue majority of the time , objects moving towards us . In the Universe . Blue light , moving towards us , not away from us . Relatively speaking . Red is moving away from us . The bigger picture is both are happening , At the same moment .
Last edited:
As DaveC tried to explain to you, the idea of "the reference frame of the photon" makes no sense. In every valid inertial frame, photons travel at a speed of c. There is no frame in which an observer could hypothetically see photons with speed zero.
When I look at that, I see a page festooned with advertising, which makes it difficult to read.
The article itself reads like a fluff piece. It does a semi-decent job of trying to express complex concepts in term that a layperson can understand, but in the process it is forced to make analogies and statements that are not really in the physics or mathematics it is discussing.
I don't think so. The idea of time passing or progressing is, in a particular view of relativity, one that is debatable, but physics can't be done without the concept of time.
BTW, when you read statements like "In fact, photons don't experience any time at all", you ought to bear in mind that this is for pop-science consumption. It isn't technically what the physics says. A more accurate statement would go something like this: "As a particle's speed approaches the speed of light, the rate at which a clock in its frame would tick, relativity to the 'stationary' clock that is viewing the fast particle, becomes a smaller and smaller fraction of the 'stationary' clock rate. In the limit as $$v\rightarrow c$$, that fraction becomes zero." However, it is important to understand what a mathematical limit means in this context. The "limit as quantity x goes to infinity" is not something that can ever be actually reached. (In this case, the thing that's going to infinity, BTW, is the Lorentz factor that quantifies the amount by which time is dilated.)
Notice, also, that the accurate statement I've just given you says nothing about particles that travel at the speed of light! In other words, while you can wave your hands and use the above statement about a limit to imagine what might happen if we could deal with a reference frame travelling at c, you need to keep in mind that, actually, there is no such reference frame - such a frame only exists in the (unattainable) limit.
New
↑
Well in the reference frame of the photon there is no TIME (capitals indicating a FUNDIMENTAL)
As DaveC tried to explain to you, the idea of "the reference frame of the photon" makes no sense. In every valid inertial frame, photons travel at a speed of c. There is no frame in which an observer could hypothetically see photons with speed zero.
Agreed .
↑
Well in the reference frame of the photon there is no TIME (capitals indicating a FUNDIMENTAL)
As DaveC tried to explain to you, the idea of "the reference frame of the photon" makes no sense. In every valid inertial frame, photons travel at a speed of c. There is no frame in which an observer could hypothetically see photons with speed zero.
Agreed .
Last edited:
The NIST guy is just boasting a little about the importance of NIST to timekeeping. What he means is not that time doesn't exist, but that NIST helps to set the
time standards used around the world. The hint is right there in the name of the organisation!
The guy's point is that NIST isn't "measuring time" against somebody else's standard. Their job is to set the standard against which other measures of time are to be compared. The reason they get to do that is actually by agreement, and that agreement is based on the idea that NIST has the most reliable time keeping equipment (i.e. the most accurate clocks) among a number of other collaborator organisations.
Your mother is older than you. Done.
You remember yesterday, but not tomorrow. Done.
etc. etc.
Denying that time exists is silly.
No. In science, we can never have access to an "absolute reality". We only have the access that our best instruments and detectors allow us to have. We have no way of knowing what is "fundamental" (note the spelling, BTW).
This is basic science 101.
There's no way to know.
Yes. It's called a clock. But even you can do it, with your built-in clocks.
Atomic clocks seem to be doing excellent work in keeping time with increasing accuracy.
Then you ought to get yourself a better dictionary. Try a scientific one, perhaps. Or a more complete version of one of the ones you have already consulted. For instance:
"(physics) the physical units of a quantity, expressed in terms of fundamental quantities like time, mass and length"
(That's just from a dictionary that is readily available online.)
river:
Since you never have anything useful to add to a discussion about science, why don't you just stay out of this one? I mean, I know we're in the pseudoscience subforum here, but you're just getting in the way of somebody possibly being educated, with your inane comments.
You can cheer on the pseudoscientist Luchito if it makes you feel better about yourself - throw him a few more likes, so you can feel like you're sticking it to the man. But please don't post anything. You just add clutter.
Since you never have anything useful to add to a discussion about science, why don't you just stay out of this one? I mean, I know we're in the pseudoscience subforum here, but you're just getting in the way of somebody possibly being educated, with your inane comments.
You can cheer on the pseudoscientist Luchito if it makes you feel better about yourself - throw him a few more likes, so you can feel like you're sticking it to the man. But please don't post anything. You just add clutter.
Please do not troll. If you cannot support a claim, you ought to retract it and apologise to your readers.
Black-holes do not exist .
Luchito:
All those words, and yet you still haven't posted a single thing that might start to refute relativity or the existence of black holes. I had high hopes that you might at least try to back up your empty words at some point, but they are rapidly dwindling.
Unless you can provide some kind of argument based on physics in your next reply, I can't see much point in my continuing to engage with you. You seem to be lost in your own fantasies and high opinions of yourself, and unwilling to connect with any actual science. I'm thinking that, most likely, you're not interested in learning anything on this topic, at least.
On the one hand, the only argument you've put up here so far is your own authority, and your disparagement of the credentials of Einstein, Hawking and myself. But on the other hand, you're unwilling to establish your own credentials. Why the double standard?
All those words, and yet you still haven't posted a single thing that might start to refute relativity or the existence of black holes. I had high hopes that you might at least try to back up your empty words at some point, but they are rapidly dwindling.
Unless you can provide some kind of argument based on physics in your next reply, I can't see much point in my continuing to engage with you. You seem to be lost in your own fantasies and high opinions of yourself, and unwilling to connect with any actual science. I'm thinking that, most likely, you're not interested in learning anything on this topic, at least.
I'd be happy to leave a discussion of quantum mechanics out of this, because it seems likely that you'll have an even poorer understanding of that topic that you have of relativity. But, before, you wanted to talk about Hawking radiation, which can't be done properly without talking about quantum physics. So, I'm a little puzzled. Perhaps we should just drop that topic, too, for now.
Nah. It's quantum physics, like I said, and if you're unaware of the basics I don't have the time or desire to educate you about them. Go look it up.
Sorry. I can't possibly list the vast majority of the community of physics professionals here.
Try googling "evidence for ..." and fill in that blank with "relativity" or "Hawking radiation". You can get back to me after you have done that.
In the peer-reviewed literature, of course! Where else would they be?
Strange. All this time, you have been questioning the credentials of scientists like Einstein and Hawking, but apparently your own credentials are somehow unimportant. It looks like you have a double standard - one for yourself, a different one for everybody else.
You're out.
I addressed this previously. Please re-read.
On the contrary, I believe that moving an atomic clock will affect its rate in the ways that are predicted by the theory of relativity. Moreover, my belief is backed up with extensive evidence.
I've done that already.
You seem to be denying that Hawking's theory exists now. Very strange.
I don't want to. It would just mean more work for me trying to disabuse you of further misconceptions and faulty understandings you have on a different topic.
That's an easy thing for you to say, but until and unless you can actually bring any science to the table, it's an empty claim. But I told you this back in April, 7 months ago. You couldn't bring it then, and I don't expect you'll bring it now, either. You haven't even made a start, yet.
Profiling posters here is out of bounds, but profiling esteemed scientists like Einstein and Hawking is just fine?
On the one hand, the only argument you've put up here so far is your own authority, and your disparagement of the credentials of Einstein, Hawking and myself. But on the other hand, you're unwilling to establish your own credentials. Why the double standard?
Last edited:
Present your evidence that relativity is wrong. Note: not your opinion. Evidence. We've heard quite enough about your opinion on this. You've had months to come up with something. What have you been doing?
No. You expressed your opinion that there's no flowing time.
Then you're denying the thousands upon thousands of experiments that support the physical reality of relativity. That's not my problem!
Of course.
I am familiar with that paper. It does nothing to show that relativity is wrong. I thinking you probably don't understand what it's about.
It's fine. Take all the time you need. Perhaps go away and gather your evidence. Then, when you have some, in a year, or in 10 years, come back and we can discuss it. Right now, all you have is your opinions, and you haven't started doing any science yet.
Oh dear. Where to start with you?
There's no "flow" of time on a spacetime graph like the ones you have linked. Time is just there as one of the axes. On every graph, the axes point in some direction from lower values towards higher values. That says nothing about a physical "arrow".
You have some basic misconceptions here that you really ought to start to address by learning some physics. If you have questions, I can probably help.
Again, there's no content to what you say other than your opinion. If you have specific objections, why don't you explain what they are? Reference the science, not just your gut feeling that something is absurd. That has been your mistake all along.
What's not to agree about?
Don't be silly. I didn't say that!
Are you comparing credentials again, now? You're criticising Einstein's photoelectric theory because it wasn't awarded a Nobel prize soon enough for your liking? Shouldn't you be concentrating on whether there's evidence that the theory is right or wrong, instead? Your methods are very inconsistent.
It's impossible to know what he was talking about, based on what you have quoted. What were his actual objections to the theory of relativity (if any)? What are the "arguments" to which he refers? I'm interested to learn more, but you're not telling me anything about the science. You're trying to rely on Essen's opinion. Why are you so focussed on opinions rather than the evidence you say is important? Oh, and did you check Essen's credentials, too? Why do you trust him above Einstein or Hawking?
The evidence of physical time is that you remember yesterday and not tomorrow, that your mother is older than you are, etc. Simple.
I don't need you to try to explain quantum mechanics. I don't think you'd be capable, frankly.
There's no need for me to defend relativity, yet. Nothing you have written so far puts in into doubt. Maybe you'll bring something soon. Or maybe not. We'll see.
Gravity has been shown to exist via its effects on other bodies and detection of gravitational waves
More at this link
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fir... detected,planned space-based LISA instrument.
Ready to show how fundimental TIME (not age) affects stuff and how its presence is detected?
Note - fundimental TIME - not time as in everyday parlance
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
So now you are trying distinguish common or garden time, as manifested in age (or duration) from something you call "fundamental" time?Gravity has been shown to exist via its effects on other bodies and detection of gravitational waves
More at this link
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves#:~:text=Gravitational waves can be detected,planned space-based LISA instrument.
Ready to show how fundimental TIME (not age) affects stuff and how its presence is detected?
Note - fundimental TIME - not time as in everyday parlance
As everyone has pointed out, time is a dimension, not a physical thing. You can't show us how to "detect" distance, in the abstract. It's meaningless. So don't demand that we should do this for time.
Defining time and then checking time against that which yourself has defined why would you not expect accuracy?
Repeating a reference
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/newsflash-time-may-not-exist
Small extract
Our clocks do not measure time
and
The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality.
Thought it was understood there are no fundimental length breath height and your addition distance so why (I haven't) would I ask you for a fundimental of any of them?
Requested (no demand) a attribute of fundimental TIME, along with other possible attributes, which would show fundimental TIME exist. None forthcoming
Never indicated TIME was a physical thing. Gravity is not a physical thing. You are welcome to show how non physical TIME manifest