Time Explained

Status
Not open for further replies.
Time exists as a mathematical quantity (same as space). Time is not a physical quantity in terms that anything depends on it. Nothing in our physical universe depends on time as well as on space (location), as well as on velocity, and on some other "purely mathematical" so to speak quantities.

This "physical non-existence" of such mathematical quantities is called "shift symmetry (of time, of space, of velocity, etc)" and is expressed by simple equation: F (t)=F (t+t1). It means, that nothing changes if you shift in time (or in space, or in velocity) any physical process - no observable difference whatsoever.

We call this symmetry term the "energy conservation law,” and "momentum conservation law" for space non-existence (shift symmetry), and "special relativity" for velocity non-existence (shift symmetry), “charge conservation” for phase non-existence, etc.)

Because nothing depends on time, there is no absolute time. No time stones, no other marks indicating time. The only way of "measuring" this mathematical quantity is to take any periodic process say, a pendulum, or a string, or a light bouncing between mirrors, or an electron oscillating in an atom, etc - then call the device a "clock device" or simply "clock”, then take TWO measurements of numbers of oscillations say, at two different locations, or at 2 different gravity environments, or at 2 different states of motion, etc., then take a RATIO of these two numbers (can't be one number because time is not absolute) and then label this ratio as "relative rate of one time versus another" or "rate of time versus reference clock rate", or "time in conventional units of time" or "accurate time" or simply "time".

Time used to be defined via pendulum, then via quartz crystal oscillations, then via Cs electron oscillation, and soon via H electron oscillation.

This is how time is measured, and in that essence, how time is therefore DEFINED and understood.

Sounds good to me Q. Can you elaborate on what you said about space and velocity? I can't see time, I'm always here now, but I can see space, and c is out there. So I don't quite understand why space and velocity fit into the same "not a physical quantity" pot as time. Apologies if I've misunderstood.

Sounds good to me Q. Can you elaborate on what you said about space and velocity? I can't see time, I'm always here now, but I can see space, and c is out there. So I don't quite understand why space and velocity fit into the same "not a physical quantity" pot as time. Apologies if I've misunderstood.

No, you can't "see" space, for that is the distance between two objects and has absolutely no bearing on the objects themselves, they are not dependent of space.

What do mean by "c is out there?"

Space, velocity and time are NOT physical quantities, they have no substance or material properties.

You can simply create time by tapping a pencil on your desk, increasing or decreasing the tapping will increase and decrease the time intervals - has anything changed?

Prince James: Yes, I'd like to hear that theory about how everything got to be where it is.

Prince_James said:
Well here's a question: How would motion account for its own existence? What aspect of space alone would allow for motion between points? For you will admit that, at least in some sense, space itself is static, yes? That it is essentially a Cartesian gridwork with an aetherial substance? So you construe space as basically the fabric that prevents infinite speed but allows for direction?

I don't have an answer for how motion accounts for its own existence. To be honest I'm not clear on the question. Objects move, through space, but explaining both of these things will maybe have to wait for another day. Yes, I see space as a kind of aether. But not the old-style aether that Michelson and Morley tried to find, and not like some of the aether stuff you see on bulletin boards. I don't think it's necessarily static.

Well supposing a void (let's say an absolute nothingness) would not exist (or else it would be a non-void) it would seem to not allow motion, as no motion could go within it. So yes, it is a bit of a vacuous concept in regards to motion, but at the very least, this shows that space would have to be construed, alongside velocity and mass in your system, as a fundamental.

I guess so. But not with much confidence. If I try to imagine absolutely nothing, I struggle. If I try to examine absolutely nothing plus a property such as permittivity, it isn't nothing anymore. It's something. But is the something the thing with the property, or is it the property? I don't know.

(Q) said:
No, you can't "see" space, for that is the distance between two objects and has absolutely no bearing on the objects themselves, they are not dependent of space.

When I look up at the sky I can see the space between the stars. When I hold up my hands to describe a fish I caught, the gap between my palms is space. I can see a hole. It's not a thing in its own right, and yes it's only defined by the things that are. But I can measure it, I can travel through it, and that's good enough for me to say its there.

What do mean by "c is out there?" .
It's a measurable property of the thing we call light.

Space, velocity and time are NOT physical quantities, they have no substance or material properties.

Who said they were? Space has properties. Velocity is a property of some thing. Time is an experience related to velocity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity#Vacuum_permittivity

You can simply create time by tapping a pencil on your desk, increasing or decreasing the tapping will increase and decrease the time intervals - has anything changed?

No, you can't create time by tapping a pencil on your desk. Even if my essay is totally wrong, tapping a pencil doesn't create time.

And I have just seen:

You see, I was right, Farsight simply ignores everything and presses on with his pet theory. Typical kook.

Thanks a bunch.

When I look up at the sky I can see the space between the stars. When I hold up my hands to describe a fish I caught, the gap between my palms is space. I can see a hole. It's not a thing in its own right, and yes it's only defined by the things that are. But I can measure it, I can travel through it, and that's good enough for me to say its there.

You really should read what you write. You don't "see" the space between stars, for there is nothing there to "see" by it's very definition, as you would also not "see" a hole between your hands. What you "see" are the relative positions of the stars and your hands.

What you are measuring is also the relative distance between the two objects and you are traveling from one object to another. You aren't traveling "through" something as that would elude to the notion that a substance was actually there. Am I hearing, "aether?"

It's a measurable property of the thing we call light.

The speed of light is a property of spacetime, not electromagnetic radiation.

Who said they were?

The scientific method is not an authoritative, it is a process.

Space has properties.

Name one. And then explain how you can "see" that property or how it could possibly be dependent.

Velocity is a property of some thing.

Velocity is simply distance over time, a vector quantity in a mathematical equation.

Time is an experience related to velocity.

Gibberish.

No, you can't create time by tapping a pencil on your desk.

Yes, you can and you did, and it affected nothing at all. All you did was create and interval between the two sounds of a pencil striking a desk, an interval of time. Simple, really.

Even if my essay is totally wrong, tapping a pencil doesn't create time.

You haven't convinced me of anything other than your authoritative statement.

And I have just seen:

..and I am not best pleased.

So what?

Farsight:

Prince James: Yes, I'd like to hear that theory about how everything got to be where it is.

I'll post this in a bit, then.

I don't have an answer for how motion accounts for its own existence.

By this I meant: What do you think is the underlying cause for motion? What makes motion possible? What makes it real?

I don't think it's necessarily static.

So you think space itself moves?

But is the something the thing with the property, or is it the property?

Well it stands to reason that no property could be tacked onto nothingness. For lacking something to "adhere" to, a property cannot really be said to be tacked onto anything, yes?

Q:

Do you actually read anything before pronouncing judgement on it? Look again at what I said:

When I look up at the sky I can see the space between the stars. When I hold up my hands to describe a fish I caught, the gap between my palms is space. I can see a hole. It's not a thing in its own right, and yes it's only defined by the things that are. But I can measure it, I can travel through it, and that's good enough for me to say its there.

But you're so keen to pick some holes you didn't read it. You say Am I hearing, "aether?" when I've already raised it about 5 posts ago. And look at this, you said:

The speed of light is a property of spacetime, not electromagnetic radiation.

Then I said space has properties, and you said:

Name one. And then explain how you can "see" that property or how it could possibly be dependent.

Did you get that? You tell me the speed of light is a property of spacetime, and in the next breath you're telling me space has no properties. And you're asking me to name one when you didn't even bother following my previous link to vacuum permittivity.

Then you scoff and give more insults, and tell me again how you can create time by tapping a pencil on your desk.

You sound like you're not here to talk physics. You sound like you're here for any old conflict you can dream up.

Last edited:
Q:

Do you actually read anything before pronouncing judgement on it? Look again at what I said:

When I look up at the sky I can see the space between the stars. When I hold up my hands to describe a fish I caught, the gap between my palms is space. I can see a hole. It's not a thing in its own right, and yes it's only defined by the things that are. But I can measure it, I can travel through it, and that's good enough for me to say its there.

But you're so keen to pick some holes you didn't read it.

Yes, I did read it and picked out the 'flaws' in your argument, hence your point is moot.

You say Am I hearing, "aether?" when I've already raised it about 5 posts ago. And look at this, you said:

There is no aether.

Did you get that? And you didn't even bother following my previous link to vacuum permittivity.

I understand permittivity, you don't, though.

Then you scoff and give more insults, and tell me again how you can create time by tapping a pencil on your desk.

You can and you did, simply by tapping a pencil or creating any such intervals with any number of methods. It's really quite simple.

You sound like you're not here to talk physics. You sound like you're here for any old conflict you can dream up.

And you are here as predicted, spouting nonsense about your pet theory and no listening to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Prince James: I can't describe an underlying cause for motion. Sorry. I'd need to have a crystal clear user-friendly explanation of both space and matter, and I don't. I wouldn't say I think space moves, but I wouldn't want to say I think space is static either. Properties are fairly tricky stuff. I can't give you the answers there either.

How's the TIME EXPLAINED essay looking now? Does it come over as crackpot nonsense, misguided irrelevance, or profound brilliance? Has there been any reasoned logic that busts it?

Last edited:
How's the TIME EXPLAINED essay looking now? Does it come over as crackpot nonsense, misguided irrelevance, or profound brilliance? Has there been any reasoned logic that busts it?

It has been busted and shown to be nonsense and misguided irrelevance. Thanks for coming.

Q: Where has it been busted? I've just reread the entire thread, including your post 28, which doesn't address the essay at all, and says shift in time as well as no absolute time. If anything I took this to somewhat agree with the essay. And make you mind up: does space have properties or not?

Q: Where has it been busted? I've just reread the entire thread, including your post 28, which doesn't address the essay at all, and says shift in time as well as no absolute time. If anything I took this to somewhat agree with the essay. And make you mind up: does space have properties or not?

Your essay is complete goobledegook, hence it has no need to be addressed.

Instead, I was explaining to you the definition of time and how it is understood in the post you refer.

You may ignore it and continue pursuing your pet theory, but it only serves to further make evident what I originally said.

Let's see now:

Farsight said:
How's the TIME EXPLAINED essay looking now? Does it come over as crackpot nonsense, misguided irrelevance, or profound brilliance? Has there been any reasoned logic that busts it?

It has been busted and shown to be nonsense and misguided irrelevance. Thanks for coming.

Farsight said:
Where has it been busted? I've just reread the entire thread, including your post 28, which doesn't address the essay at all, and says shift in time as well as no absolute time. If anything I took this to somewhat agree with the essay.

Your essay is complete goobledegook, hence it has no need to be addressed.

So the essay hasn't been addressed, so it hasn't been busted.

Now does space have properties or not?

Last edited:
DH: If you've got something rational or logical you'd care to contribute, let's hear it. Don't treat TIME EXPLAINED with contempt. Read it properly, understand what it says. If you're smart enough. Then please feel free to voice criticism and point out where it's wrong. Something rather more convincing than:

DH said:
Time is a fundamental quantity in SI. Simply put, time is axiomatic, as is position. The two put together give velocity, a derived quantity. The choice of axiomatic versus derived is a bit arbitrary. Two of time/position/velocity must be axiomatic quantities. The handy thing about choosing time and position is that one quantity is inherently a scalar, the other, a vector. A perfectly valid system could have time and velocity axiomatic, with position derived. The system we have works quite fine, thank you. It appears that your whole argument hinges on time being axiomatic and you don't like that.

What if I am not moving?

Remember I said your atoms and electrons etc are moving. Nobody can bust TIME EXPLAINED. This isn't some stupid "Relativity is Nonsense" thread.

Last edited:
This isn't some stupid "Relativity is Nonsense" thread.

In the current scheme, position and time are axiomatic with velocity a derived quantity. You want to make velocity axiomatic and time derived. There is no net change; you still have axiomatic quantities. So you better justify why it is so advantageous to make velocity axiomatic as opposed to time. You have a lot to justify; the current schema works quite well.

Your system, is in fact, worse. A zero divided by zero (undefined) problem arises when an object is not moving.

Farsight:

Prince James: I can't describe an underlying cause for motion. Sorry. I'd need to have a crystal clear user-friendly explanation of both space and matter, and I don't. I wouldn't say I think space moves, but I wouldn't want to say I think space is static either. Properties are fairly tricky stuff. I can't give you the answers there either.

You should try to give some thoughts on space and matter and get back to me once you do. I'd appreciate your insight on them.

How's the TIME EXPLAINED essay looking now? Does it come over as crackpot nonsense, misguided irrelevance, or profound brilliance? Has there been any reasoned logic that busts it?

"Time Explained" was always a reasoned, well thought out essay. The people here (namely Q and DH) are being absurdly bigotted in their appraisal and acting like Sophist crybabies.

Of course, I retain a position contrary to yours, and I shall be presenting you a sort of argument for a view of time that is different soon.

"Time Explained" was always a reasoned, well thought out essay. The people here (namely Q and DH) are being absurdly bigotted in their appraisal and acting like Sophist crybabies.

And that's the appreciation one gets when providing correct information?

Clearly, PrinceJames prefers to wallow in the mire of ignorance and forever be an idiot.

In the current scheme, position and time are axiomatic with velocity a derived quantity. You want to make velocity axiomatic and time derived. There is no net change; you still have axiomatic quantities. So you better justify why it is so advantageous to make velocity axiomatic as opposed to time. You have a lot to justify; the current schema works quite well.

I think the justification is that Special Relativity is built around a constant c, and tells me that if I move through space, I experience less time. As my velocity increases my time experience decreases, all the way to c, whereupon my time experience is zero. Let's say I'm a photon. I now experience no time, but still have that velocity of c, and can still experience events, such as emission, wavelength, and absorption. The velocity is there, as are the events, but the time is not. So I'd say axiomatic velocity is a purer interpretation of Special Relativity. Yes, you can say the current schema works quite well, but you can say that about anything, from stone axes upwards. I think the scientific thing to do is to examine the alternative and see what it offers. If we stop thinking of time as a fundamental dimension that can be travelled through, will it solve any problems or open new avenues? I can't say, but I think it's worth looking at.

If I can elaborate, events such as a collision between two objects happen "now" for both objects, regardless of their time experience. I can accelerate an atomic clock to near light speed, such that it has experienced 1 hour less time than another atomic clock. Then when I collide them, BANG it's now for both clocks. Neither clock has in any way "travelled through time". I can contrive other collision events such that A happens before B in one "frame" and B happens before A in another. But the collision events happen, regardless of time experience, akin to the photon. The correct interpretation has to be that time is subjective rather than objective, and velocity rules. Or maybe I should say c rules.

Your system, is in fact, worse. A zero divided by zero (undefined) problem arises when an object is not moving.

Not so. When an object is not moving, its atoms still have internal motion, as do the atoms of the observer. Here's a bit from the essay:

Imagine yourself as a metronome. Each tick is a thought in your head, a beat in your heart. If you’re travelling with a forward motion of c you can't tick, because any transverse motion would cause c to be exceeded. If however your forward velocity is zero you can tick with a transverse motion of c. Your time experience changes, but it merely depends on how your motion is cut.

I think the "object not moving" situation is more like a c divided by a c, or a 1 divided by a 1. Maybe a t divided by a t, I'm not sure. But we still experience time when our velocity is 0. Of course if all our atoms and photons and electrons were motionless, we wouldn't.

Last edited:
I think the justification is that Special Relativity is built around a constant c, and tells me that if I move through space, I experience less time.

No, you don't. In your frame of reference, nothing has changed.

As my velocity increases my time experience decreases, all the way to c, whereupon my time experience is zero.

Utter nonsense.

So I'd say axiomatic velocity is a purer interpretation of Special Relativity.

I would say you don't understand relativity, based on your posts.

I can't say, but I think it's worth looking at.

Nonsense isn't worth looking at.

If I can elaborate, events such as a collision between two objects happen "now" for both objects, regardless of their time experience. I can accelerate an atomic clock to near light speed, such that it has experienced 1 hour less time than another atomic clock. Then when I collide them, BANG it's now for both clocks. Neither clock has in any way "travelled through time". I can contrive other collision events such that A happens before B in one "frame" and B happens before A in another. But the collision events happen, regardless of time experience, akin to the photon. The correct interpretation has to be that time is subjective rather than objective, and velocity rules. Or maybe I should say c rules.

Or, maybe ignorance rules, on your part.

Imagine yourself as a metronome. Each tick is a thought in your head, a beat in your heart. If you’re travelling with a forward motion of c you can't tick, because any transverse motion would cause c to be exceeded. If however your forward velocity is zero you can tick with a transverse motion of c. Your time experience changes, but it merely depends on how your motion is cut.

Crapola. Nothing changes in your frame of reference. Please try to understand relativity before making a further ass of yourself.

Status
Not open for further replies.