Einstein view of time
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
Michael 345:
Your latest few posts look a lot like a distraction to me.
Your claim, recall, is that time doesn't exist, and more specifically that the past and future don't exist.
Would you like to have a go at actually making an argument for that claim, or do you now wish to withdraw it?
It is not up to me to do your legwork for you. I don't see how my imagining what a hypothetical God may or may not see if he could hypothetically somehow sit outside the universe is going to help your argument. If you have a case to put, put it.
Your latest few posts look a lot like a distraction to me.
Your claim, recall, is that time doesn't exist, and more specifically that the past and future don't exist.
Would you like to have a go at actually making an argument for that claim, or do you now wish to withdraw it?
It is not up to me to do your legwork for you. I don't see how my imagining what a hypothetical God may or may not see if he could hypothetically somehow sit outside the universe is going to help your argument. If you have a case to put, put it.
Not withdraw claim but if you don't wish to follow a case in logic I am trying to follow
forget I asked
Abstract
The failure of the dialectics of time and space has various origins:
- The confusion between time and event, e.g., the confusion between past timeand past event.
- The non-rigorous use of language, e.g., questions like the duration of present time.
- The difficulty in understanding the difference between a phenomenon which belongs to physical reality, and the corresponding mental construct or concept, e.g., we measure changes instead of hours.
- The dichotomy between time and space, attempting to make time, space, and spacetime, physical realities.
- The countless metaphors in which time has an active role (dynamics of time, action of time, arrow of time), and in which space has a materiality.
Past Time Present Event Dark Ring Word Time Duration Thickness
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Bibliography
- 1.
Homer. (9th century BC). Odyssey(L’Odyssée—Librairie Alphonse Lemerre, Translation by L. de Lisle (1818–1894)—not dated).Google Scholar - 2.
Lucretius. (Titus Lucretius—98 or 94—55 av). The nature of things (La nature des choses—Gallimard 2010, Translated by J. Pigeaud).Google Scholar - 3.
Larousse. (1948). Nouveau petit Larousse illustre. Paris: Librairie Larousse.Google Scholar - 4.
Diodorus. (c. 90–30) of Sicily: Historic library (La Bibliothèque historique, Translated by F. Hoefer in 1851—Consulted on the site of Philippe Remacle).Google Scholar - 5.
Bergson, H. (1955). L’Énergie Spirituelle (1919) (spiritual energy). Paris: P.U.F.Google Scholar - 6.
Klein, É., & Spiro, M. (1996). Le temps et sa flèche (time and its arrow). Paris: Champ Flammarion.Google Scholar - 7.
Attali, J. (1982). Histoire du temps(history of time). Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar - 8.
L’Express (February 22nd, 2012).Google Scholar - 9.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1960). Signes(signs). Paris: NRF Gallimard.Google Scholar - 10.
Plutarch. (c. 46–c. 126). (2001). Parallel lives (Vies Parallèles—Traduction par R. Flacelière & E. Chambry). Paris: Éditions Robert Laffont.Google Scholar - 11.
Caius Petronius. (?–65 AD). (1923). Satyricon (Le Satyricon). Éditions Frasquelle.Google Scholar - 12.
Kramer, S. N. (1957). L’Histoire commence à Sumer (history begins in Sumer) (Translated by J. Hesse, M. Moussy & P. Stephano). Paris: Artaud.Google Scholar - 13.
Histoire des Moeurs (history of the mores). (1990–1991). Paris: La Pléiade.Google Scholar - 14.
Horace. (65 BC–8 AD). (1967). Œuvres(Translation and notes by F. Richard). Paris: GF-Flammarion.Google Scholar - 15.
Offenbach, J. (1819–1880). Contes d’Hoffmann; first performance in 1881.Google Scholar - 16.
Shakespeare, W. (1964). The complete works of William Shakespeare.London E.C.4: London Oxford University Press, Amen House.Google Scholar - 17.
Guide Hachette des vins. (1996). Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar - 18.
Klein, É. (2003). Les Tactiques de Chronos. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017
Physics and Astronomy
On holiday but if you want to browse through any of this lot might help to decode my thoughts but I think would have been easy to thought experiment you decide not to go with
Excuse the delay in attempting clarification.
To meter something, is to control its rate of introduction and distribution into a system. A simple example is a device inserted before a shower head, that restricts the flow for the purpose of water conservation. A more complex example is a traffic signal that regulates traffic flow, where the timing of the lights is adjusted for minimum delays and maximum flow.
[The purpose of a clock is to supply standard events that correlate (are simultaneous) to an event of interest. Typically for forming historical records. The units of measure, or event intervals are whatever is convenient. It's in this sense that a clock meters the time independently of any other process or any specific purpose. It continuously accumulates cycles. The observer makes measurements using the values indicated on the clock. A ruler has uniform spatial intervals, and does not measure anything. The observer can use it for measurement.]
[Even though the second is defined in terms of atomic frequencies, it still has to equal 1/86400 of a day, which equals 1 earth rotation, so time is motion. If there is no universal 'time' then there is no universal coordination that could synchronize processes to the point of everything happening as one event. Additionally, objects have different lifetimes depending on complexity.]
[Physical processes are in place throughout the universe. Tomorrow keeps happening because the earth continues to rotate, and the laws of motion are consistent, which allows for prediction of events like eclipses, comets, and weather.]
[If a common clock is regulated to run faster, does it measure more 'time'?]
[Consider this example.
A is the rest frame with B, and C passing at the origin, moving in +x direction.
B moves at .4c relative to A.
C moves at .8c relative to A.
A sends a light signal to an object at x=1 unit at t=0, which reflects back to A.
All clocks read 0 at the origin.
Applying the coordinate transformations for the reflection event:
For A (x, t) = (1, 1)
For B (x, t) = (.65, .65)
For C (x, t) = (.33, .33)
The times for the same event are different for each observer. so the clocks can't be measuring a common independent 'time'. In SR, perception of time is altered by motion.]
[Past, present, and future is only relative to an observer. While 'now', an observer analyzes images of events that have occurred. His awareness is that of historical events, to different degrees, depending on distance. Since images are transferred at light speed, there is no significant delay for 'local' events. An event occurs once but can be perceived multiple times. An event has emitted images that were detected by observer-1 between you and the event. The event was in his 'now', but not yet in your 'now'. The 'future' is unknown and does not magically transform to 'now'.]
To meter something, is to control its rate of introduction and distribution into a system. A simple example is a device inserted before a shower head, that restricts the flow for the purpose of water conservation. A more complex example is a traffic signal that regulates traffic flow, where the timing of the lights is adjusted for minimum delays and maximum flow.
[The purpose of a clock is to supply standard events that correlate (are simultaneous) to an event of interest. Typically for forming historical records. The units of measure, or event intervals are whatever is convenient. It's in this sense that a clock meters the time independently of any other process or any specific purpose. It continuously accumulates cycles. The observer makes measurements using the values indicated on the clock. A ruler has uniform spatial intervals, and does not measure anything. The observer can use it for measurement.]
[Even though the second is defined in terms of atomic frequencies, it still has to equal 1/86400 of a day, which equals 1 earth rotation, so time is motion. If there is no universal 'time' then there is no universal coordination that could synchronize processes to the point of everything happening as one event. Additionally, objects have different lifetimes depending on complexity.]
[Physical processes are in place throughout the universe. Tomorrow keeps happening because the earth continues to rotate, and the laws of motion are consistent, which allows for prediction of events like eclipses, comets, and weather.]
[If a common clock is regulated to run faster, does it measure more 'time'?]
[Consider this example.
A is the rest frame with B, and C passing at the origin, moving in +x direction.
B moves at .4c relative to A.
C moves at .8c relative to A.
A sends a light signal to an object at x=1 unit at t=0, which reflects back to A.
All clocks read 0 at the origin.
Applying the coordinate transformations for the reflection event:
For A (x, t) = (1, 1)
For B (x, t) = (.65, .65)
For C (x, t) = (.33, .33)
The times for the same event are different for each observer. so the clocks can't be measuring a common independent 'time'. In SR, perception of time is altered by motion.]
[Past, present, and future is only relative to an observer. While 'now', an observer analyzes images of events that have occurred. His awareness is that of historical events, to different degrees, depending on distance. Since images are transferred at light speed, there is no significant delay for 'local' events. An event occurs once but can be perceived multiple times. An event has emitted images that were detected by observer-1 between you and the event. The event was in his 'now', but not yet in your 'now'. The 'future' is unknown and does not magically transform to 'now'.]
OK
The non existence of time
The properties of TIME are
Visual - none
Audio - none
Frequency - none
Mass - none
Position on the periodic table - none
Position in the electromagnetic spectrum - none
Detectability - none
All those properties I have missed - none of those either
Please feel free to add to the list
Future post will cover
The View from god's Rocking Chair Situated Outside of the Universe
a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
The non existence of time
The properties of TIME are
Visual - none
Audio - none
Frequency - none
Mass - none
Position on the periodic table - none
Position in the electromagnetic spectrum - none
Detectability - none
All those properties I have missed - none of those either
Please feel free to add to the list
Future post will cover
The View from god's Rocking Chair Situated Outside of the Universe
a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT
Michel 345:
Frequency, by the way, is actually related to time - it's inverse time, in a sense. Or rather, it is the number of times that something happens during a given time interval.
Length doesn't have any of those properties either. So, again, I have to ask you whether you think space doesn't exist, as well.
Frequency, by the way, is actually related to time - it's inverse time, in a sense. Or rather, it is the number of times that something happens during a given time interval.
I can't wait.
I thought I answered that
From post 128 in this thread
Is that a concession that length and TIME are equal in their non existence?
If not so, can you explain any difference between the two?
And the given time interval is a arbitrary constructed interval, much like length is a arbitrary constructed measurement
- I see the totality of the Universe
- I see all of every single atom of the Universe
- I see one Universe
- I see this ONE single Universe
- as a ONE single NOW
- with EVERYTHING occuring
- within the ONE single NOW
I'm saying that if you want to deny that time exists, then you've probably also going to have to deny that space exists. As we know from Einstein, space and time are rather intimately linked to one another. That's not to say they are the same thing, of course.
Put it this way: all events occur at particular coordinates in space and time. Those coordinates are not a "thing", but that doesn't mean they don't identify something real about the universe. To put it slightly differently, a spatial coordinate labels a real thing - a position in space. Similarly, a time coordinate labels something real - a particular time in the whole of history.
If you want to try to deny that time exists, and throw away that time coordinate, then you have no way to distinguish something happening here now from the same kind of thing happening here yesterday, or in three weeks' time.
You're mixing up the units used to measure things with the things themselves. Units are arbitrary. The things they measure are not - at least not when we're talking about space and time.
No matter how much you might want to, you can't redefine time to suit yourself. You can define new units of time to suit yourself, but that won't stop stuff happening to you.
Fine so far.
I have no idea what you mean by that.
I define "now" as a particular set of events that occur simultaneously in my current reference frame.
How does your God in his armchair define "NOW"?
So, your hypothetical armchair God who sits outside the universe defines the whole of history as "NOW". That doesn't sound like a very useful definition, but let's run with it if you want to.
How does this prove that time isn't real, then?
Mick...at best it can be said that defining time is debatable, at worst your view is incorrect. While space and time are certainly distinguishable and can simply be defined as space stopping everything from being together, and time stopping everything from happening together, they are also interchangeable.
This interchangebility in space and time is explained with time dilation and Lorentz contraction.
I gave you an earlier link to Sean Carroll's view on time, here is another explanation....https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...-it-flow-and-if-so-what-defines-its-direction
Our models, particularly the well validated ones of SR and GR see both time and space as while simply co-ordinates and non physical, but real just the same....remember spacetime as defined by Minkowski can be bent, warped, twisted every which way....I believe that makes them real enough, along of course with the fact that there is never any universal "NOW"
But hey! If I ever make it to Darwin, I'll buy you a schooner!
This interchangebility in space and time is explained with time dilation and Lorentz contraction.
I gave you an earlier link to Sean Carroll's view on time, here is another explanation....https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...-it-flow-and-if-so-what-defines-its-direction
Our models, particularly the well validated ones of SR and GR see both time and space as while simply co-ordinates and non physical, but real just the same....remember spacetime as defined by Minkowski can be bent, warped, twisted every which way....I believe that makes them real enough, along of course with the fact that there is never any universal "NOW"
But hey! If I ever make it to Darwin, I'll buy you a schooner!
A clever combination of time and space can already be found in the ancient
world: during the fifth century BC, Herodotus frequently expressed distance in days
of walking, in days of navigation, or months of navigation (Ch. 1, 3: Book II, 19 and
31). Nowadays, astronomers use the light-year, among other units of distance.
Astrophysics uses spatial concepts of time curvature and spacetime curvature in
order to denote the inverse of time and the inverse of spacetime; this attempt to
spatialize time and spacetime says the same thing, but otherwise teaches us nothing,
merely worsening the confusion between time and space.
From
The Invention of Time and Space by Patrice F. Dassonville
More later
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Correct, without two points of reference both terms "length" and "time" have no properties.
If anything our use of the term "length" supports the abstract nature of the definitions of both "length" and "time".
Length = 5 is a meaningless measurement. However, many standardized length measurements have been invented.
Time = 5 is a meaningless measurement. However, many standardized time measurements have been invented.
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
What is the philochroanalysis?
See: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/does-time-exist.152720/page-98#post-3584599
See: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/does-time-exist.152720/page-98#post-3584599
Make it Bali and I will take you up with a Bintang Radler lemon
Agree
Disagree
Only space is required
Once everything is separate EVERYTHING is able to occur at a single moment
The single moment is called NOW
Cannot MAKE something real enough by defining a coordinate and designating the coordinate as being real
And YES there is a Universal NOW
Would you consider if you and your TV set are in the same room you are in the same NOW? or in different NOWs?
If same NOW - at what distance (space) would you consider a different NOW to cut in?
If different NOW would you accept ITS different NOW is only because of ITS different NOW is arriving at your location (current NOW) due to DISTANCE not TIME?
Remember you both are in a new current NOW where the above (which ever one you choose) prevails
Asexperia
Registered Senior Member
The change-interval duality explains the nature of time.
Read more in: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/does-time-exist.152720/page-98#post-3586029
Read more in: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/does-time-exist.152720/page-98#post-3586029
Bob-a-builder
Registered Senior Member
Time is "memory". If you had no memory you could not notice time. That comes from some fringe scientist I forget the name of at the moment but is a fun way of phrasing the Opening Post. Short and sweet. Time=Memory.
That is abstract and just a way of perception as is the quotes from Einstein.
"Einstein is an idiot" - Nikola Tesla
Einsteins claims to fame are not "stupendous". Measuring stars during an eclipse to see if light bends in gravity and noticing speed requires two points to measure. If relativity doesn't work just invent a "special relativity".
I prefer the Nikola Tesla views on gravity and spacetime and it seems Einstein would probably fail at grade 10 math.
Anyways. I am not suggesting Einstein was an Idiot. I'm just quoting Nikola Tesla who would view time as a field according to dynamic gravity he proposed (if true).
Maybe Einstein will be proven right on all counts.. It just seems unlikely as Tesla seemed actually clever.
That is abstract and just a way of perception as is the quotes from Einstein.
"Einstein is an idiot" - Nikola Tesla
Einsteins claims to fame are not "stupendous". Measuring stars during an eclipse to see if light bends in gravity and noticing speed requires two points to measure. If relativity doesn't work just invent a "special relativity".
I prefer the Nikola Tesla views on gravity and spacetime and it seems Einstein would probably fail at grade 10 math.
Anyways. I am not suggesting Einstein was an Idiot. I'm just quoting Nikola Tesla who would view time as a field according to dynamic gravity he proposed (if true).
Maybe Einstein will be proven right on all counts.. It just seems unlikely as Tesla seemed actually clever.
So far he has...but as is the case with scientific theories, they are continually tested and retested.
There have been many clever men that are still otherwise a bit nutty/eccentric/delusional
PS: Nothing is proven in science, and theories always remain as theories and open for modification and/or change...they do though grow in certainty over time just as Einstein's SR and GR have.
Bob-a-builder
Registered Senior Member
Explain please
Perhaps also name a property of TIME
This is from the Opening Post/TOPIC of thread.
When an individual ponders his experiences, he can order the events in his life using the criteria of before and after. He can assign a number to each event in such a way that events assigned a lower number occurred before events assigned a higher number.
I suggested saying "Time = memory" from our perspective as an ALTERNATIVE and SHORTER way of saying that as I heard it elsewhere.
I made NO CLAIMS in my above posting so unsure what crawled up your butt. IT is however truth that if we had no memory we would never be able to notice time.
My opinions were not expressed above. If I had to give an opinion of what time was I think of it as a measure of magnitudes. It is not a thing just as a shadow is not a thing. It is a field created for intensity of expression but sciforums is not the place to discuss Tesla type notions as factual as you learned in the thread arguing for your version of time.
You wish to bring forth the Woo of Nikola Tesla then I could quote you and James R having quite the bash out on another thread. To which I never entered.
I made no claims in my above when i SHORTENED a sentence made in opening post (in red above) in my last post, however if I had to choose a model for remembering it would be very "woo" to current thinking as I think we move through space leaving memories in our wake that can be sensed and even altered in a telepathic type fashion.
I doubt many on sciforums would believe in things like manifesting so are blind to things like this but if a person can manifest anything (Believe it or do not believe it.. this is just for those who believe 100% in manifesting consciously) then they can notice the past seems to alter to fit the present. Example: If a person manifested a coffee or parking space, the car does not POOF away like on bewitched. It is far more likely we telepathically altered our collective timelines to prevent a person from parking in that space to begin with. Time and past do not exist from this perspective. Time is simply a field of measurements (aka Memory).
That is more a religious belief so has no place in a science forum and I do not shove my Buddhist/Hindu beliefs on anyone. People in my religion (Buddhism/Hinduism) believe we can affect reality with thought.
However this is not a religious thread and I never made any religious claims. I am just saying that I follow the Buddhist notions of an afterlife, etc. (one can hope). If people here wish to not try manifesting (think on something and watch) then that is their choices. I have seen what I would deem "miracles" and if I meditate on an outcome it does seem to manifest provided there is not a lot of opposing thoughts from others.
On a science level I do not think we could reverse time but I think memories as a grouping can be altered. One would need to see conscious manifesting and attempt to explain it to realize the past must seem to alter to fit the present. Example: a song could just be random... However IF-if-if you think of an obscure song, commercial, topic.. and then that topic/song/commercial comes on television then we have somehow altered the past as those commercials and songs were likely scheduled before your whims upon it.
That is my religious view but that means I subscribe to the Buddhist notions of us a collective capable of telepathic thoughts. I do like biology. I like seeing experiments where birds in Faraday cages lose their sense of direction (Nature(dot)com, etc).
Scientifically I prefer the Tesla notion that everything is Toroidal fields in which
"Space is not a thing, space is not a subject" - Nikola Tesla
No more than a shadow is a thing. No more than a time is a thing.
I do not wish to debate Einstein vs Tesla but Tesla seemed actually clever. Nikola Tesla called Einstein an idiot. However; Nikola Tesla would also say electrons are not a thing. He would say everything is a field. He would say the universe is made of electricity and dielectricity but that is just quoting from them. I truly do not care if it is true or not. Example: Whether Tesla is right or Newton is right on the topic of gravity (Tesla's Dynamic gravity) the formulas work well enough for us to send a man to the moon or calculate flight energy. It simply does not matter to me.
Tesla's view is that if electrons were things that moved away from Hydro generators (as example) then the hydro generators should weigh much less today than they did when they were built 50 years ago.
I believe Tesla and so I believe there must be something that looks and behaves like electrons but at the root core all is fields including what we think of as time.
I did state in my last post
Time is "memory". If you had no memory you could not notice time. That comes from some fringe scientist I forget the name of at the moment but is a fun way of phrasing the Opening Post. Short and sweet. Time=Memory.
When I say that SHORTENING of OPENING POST (aka ENTIRE TOPIC HERE) was from a "FRINGE SCIENTIST" whom I could not even recall the name of.. then that NOT RECALLING the name of... should give you some indication of how truly little I care for that topic.
Had I suggested Nikola Tesla or Walter Russell in your other thread on time it would be considered woo. Much of todays science is "peer reviewed" which is a nice way of saying people kiss the butts of their predecessors and build only upon crap already spouted. It does not mean "peer reviewed" is anything more than popular opinion. Earth as the center of the universe was correct peer reviewed science 1000 years ago.
I would be open to any TOE scientific hypothesis if it truly explained everything. No "special" theories required.
But as stated... I truly do not care enough on this topic to be involved. I am a backyard hobbyist who studies some fringe topics but I make no claims.
I do not say my above religious beliefs are correct.
All I did was shorten a sentence made in Opening post.
That sentence was....
"When an individual ponders his experiences, he can order the events in his life using the criteria of before and after. He can assign a number to each event in such a way that events assigned a lower number occurred before events assigned a higher number. " - Albert Einstein
So if Einstein made that quote and I simply shortened it to "Time = Memory" then I am just shortening something Einstein himself was alleged to have said (I do not know or care if true; but this was claim in OPENING POST/TOPIC HERE)
Then you should ask Albert Einstein what he was speaking on. I feel the man was likely too high on crack most of the time (Facetious comment - Cocaine probably more likely). It has been suggested DMT, LSD, and cocaine were discovered in the cells of Einstein after his death. I could truly care less if true or not.
I also said a fringe scientist (who apparently agreed with Einstein) had used the phrase "Time = memory" in respect to our viewpoint.
How time actually works is more a matter of opinion at this moment. It seems to be linear but It is also not constant. So I am of the OPINION we can block time and eventually create a time machine going forward. I do not think we could ever go back in time.
So ask Albert Einstein what he was smoking when he said ""When an individual ponders his experiences, he can order the events in his life using the criteria of before and after. He can assign a number to each event in such a way that events assigned a lower number occurred before events assigned a higher number. " - Albert Einstein
as claimed by Opening post. That says things equal to "time is only memory from our view".
It is a fun way to look at it but I have no opinion or theory. I don't even have a hypothesis as I do not care.
I have opinions and religious beliefs which you could also argue elsewhere with Buddhists who give a crap. I don't really care enough to bother.
So.. go argue with Albert Einstein. I also think he was a nutter so if you wish to think Time is not just memory from our viewpoint tell Einstein he is full of crap. It will not bother me.