Is There A Universal Now?
- Thread starter Cyperium
- Start date
LaurieAG
Registered Senior Member
This might be more like what the OP is thinking about.
In his draft paper "Space geometry in rotating reference frames: A historical appraisal" Øyvind Grøn talks about the “optical appearance” of points of light on a rolling ring at retarded points of time and this plot shows the position of the points when they emitted light that arrived at a camera on the ground just as the ring passed the camera. This plot is not actually a frame as such.
In his draft paper "Space geometry in rotating reference frames: A historical appraisal" Øyvind Grøn talks about the “optical appearance” of points of light on a rolling ring at retarded points of time and this plot shows the position of the points when they emitted light that arrived at a camera on the ground just as the ring passed the camera. This plot is not actually a frame as such.
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
What a wise man you are.
Thank you for your advise.
Nothing else to say ? (Whats the use of YOUR studies then ?)
The SR "now" is just stupid.
The proof : This lead to some fairytales like the block universe and the possibility to travel into time (eternalism crap).
But you like it because you just understand mathematic, not the physic you are supposed to describe.
Sure, bloc universe "exists" ! Mathematician know they can build a coherent system with their mathematic... but it is only mathematic : Sorry but santa christmas doesent exists and adding little poneys with little poneys dont make them real (Sure that for you 20 years studies is not enougth, you would need 3 or 4 life, you dont have for sure.. but perhaps with SR you can ::.
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
Does time slow down or speed up when you slow down?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
But isn't that true of anything that we measure?Many scientists contend there is no such animal as FUNDIMENTIAL TIME
No one has any equipment which measures TIME
The clocks etc we have as time measure's only measure what WE define as time
No
We measure the the speed of light (which is FUNDIMENTIAL)
The units we use, yes, are our own
Aliens will measure speed of light in their units. Once both groups of scientists work out the translations and conversations it will be apparent both groups are taking about the same speed
For TIME there is no FUNDIMENTIAL aspect we can match with Alien version
If that was true then we could not agree with aliens on the speed of light since that obviously also includes a time conversion.
I realize arguing with you on time is an exercise in futility, but maybe you can see the flaw in this particular point.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Tell me how you can measure the speed of light without measuring the time light takes to travel a measured distance.No
We measure the the speed of light (which is FUNDIMENTIAL)
The units we use, yes, are our own
Aliens will measure speed of light in their units. Once both groups of scientists work out the translations and conversations it will be apparent both groups are taking about the same speed
For TIME there is no FUNDIMENTIAL aspect we can match with Alien version
The time used to measure the speed of light IS NOT FUNDIMENTIAL TIME
The units used ARE OUR OWN MADE UP UNITS
Are you aware of any FUNDIMENTIAL units of time? other than our own designated units?
There are no FUNDIMENTIAL units of length and mass either, so why do you insist on singling out poor time?
I don't insist (insist is a bit strange and strong since I never mentioned either) but if you wish I can drag those non FUNDIMENTIALS in
However TIME (the FUNDIMENTIAL version) happens to be currently under scrutiny
I note posting FUNDIMENTIAL units of time was sidestepped
Also I note no properties of TIME listed
Is it not correct to say for something to exist it must have properties?
Last edited:
That would be helpful, to understand what your point is.
I'm not sure how a lack of FUNDAMENTAL units have anything to do with something being real or not.
There are no FUNDAMENTAL units for time, length or mass. Do you feel that time, length mass don't exist or is it just time?
I didn't side step anything I acknowledged there are no FUNDAMENTAL units of time, I'm just not sure why you think that's important.
Then I will attempt to be helpful
Any FUNDIMENTIAL units would be consistent throughout the Universe under, as I understand our current knowledge of physics
Hence the gravitational constant and speed of light will have the same value throughout the Universe
We (scientists) will still measure them in our own units, as will scientists in levels of technology equal to our level
Translation of both our levels will confirm that both are the same confirming the FUNDIMENTIAL level of the gravitational constant
Do you feel that , length mass don't exist or is it just ?
length does not exist as a FUNDAMENTAL correct
mass exist, it has properties
If FUNDIMENTIAL UNITS OF TIME EXIST, (and I do note YOU acknowledge they do not), acknowledgement of FUNDIMENTIAL units of time would confirm the existence of time
But since they don't TIME does not. Hence in previous sentence is not the single reason TIME does not exist
Hence, if they existed, they would be important
I see that you believe that neither time nor length exist (I don't actually believe you because based on your posts you are not insane). However, I will go ahead and accept what you are saying at face value and leave it there. There is nothing else for me to add.
Why did Einstein define time in terms of simultaneity?Then I will attempt to be helpful
Any FUNDIMENTIAL units would be consistent throughout the Universe under, as I understand our current knowledge of physics
Hence the gravitational constant and speed of light will have the same value throughout the Universe
We (scientists) will still measure them in our own units, as will scientists in levels of technology equal to our level
Translation of both our levels will confirm that both are the same confirming the FUNDIMENTIAL level of the gravitational constant
Do you feel that , length mass don't exist or is it just ?
length does not exist as a FUNDAMENTAL correct
mass exist, it has properties
If FUNDIMENTIAL UNITS OF TIME EXIST, (and I do note YOU acknowledge they do not), acknowledgement of FUNDIMENTIAL units of time would confirm the existence of time
But since they don't TIME does not. Hence in previous sentence is not the single reason TIME does not exist
Hence, if they existed, they would be important
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
If you don't have fundamental units for time (or distance for that matter) then you don't have fundamental units for the speed of light either, seeing as the units of that are distance units/time units.The time used to measure the speed of light IS NOT FUNDIMENTIAL TIME
The units used ARE OUR OWN MADE UP UNITS
Are you aware of any FUNDIMENTIAL units of time? other than our own designated units?