0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Thebox on 13/05/2015 19:06:17''If you want to claim that time itself remains advancing in a constant and unchanging rate''Time itself does not exist unless by arbitrary use. It is impossible to prove time exists other than arbitrary use and the existence of matter.''but that everything in the universe perceives its own arbitrary different "modified time''Yes arbitrary time is dependent to the matter/object or observer. And dependent to gravitational flux.and this is a paradox that gives the same answers, arbitrary time is the timing of something.Ok. So what's the problem with the way that scientists use time? (hint: we know it's arbitrary)
''If you want to claim that time itself remains advancing in a constant and unchanging rate''Time itself does not exist unless by arbitrary use. It is impossible to prove time exists other than arbitrary use and the existence of matter.''but that everything in the universe perceives its own arbitrary different "modified time''Yes arbitrary time is dependent to the matter/object or observer. And dependent to gravitational flux.and this is a paradox that gives the same answers, arbitrary time is the timing of something.
a spaceship travels 100 mile into space and back again, a caesium clock on the spaceship shows an arbitrary time dilation. the distance of 100 miles is a constant, c does not alter over that constant.This also shows arbitrary time is dependent to an observer or object.
the Caesium clock is arbitrary , no different to a wall clock.
Quote from: Thebox on 13/05/2015 21:00:27a spaceship travels 100 mile into space and back again, a caesium clock on the spaceship shows an arbitrary time dilation. the distance of 100 miles is a constant, c does not alter over that constant.This also shows arbitrary time is dependent to an observer or object.I don't know why you think I agree with you. I don't think you really read my posts.The effect we call time dilation is not arbitrary, it is real. The travelling twin is really younger on return. The distance is not 100miles for the traveller, that's why it takes less time to travel that you would expect.As has been said before, caesium has nothing to do with it.Your attempt to define time as arbitrary is pointless, no physicist considers it to be absolute. Your attempt to define it as distance is also pointless. As has been said before you do not understanding measurement, how could you, you don't even understand numbers. That time is arbitrary is even understood by the general population, here when it is midday the French call it 1pm, in New York they would say 7am; this is why we define UTC for when it is important to translate between time zones. At one point the French even tried to introduce the 10 hour day. This has been discussed before, however to reiterate, both temperature and pressure are measured as a distance of mercury, this does not make them a distance. Temperature scales are arbitrary, this is why at least 8 exist. With temperature we are usually specific if we are talking about a point on the scale, or a change. With time colloquial usage allows the same term for both. When measuring speed we take the distance traveled divided by the time taken to travel that distance, usually written x/t, distance over time. Strictly speaking we should say change of distance over change of time dx/dt and physicists often do this when necessary. Note that I say change of distance, because distance is always measured from a reference point (which is usually implied to be point 0), however again common usage allows us to refer to the change of distance as plain distance and no one is pedantic enough to argue the point - I'm surprised you haven't.This measurement of time is extremely useful and is essential to the work of Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Faraday, etc. This is the difference between science and pseudoscience, the former is useful, it makes predictions and allows us to design systems which work. It does not imply anything about what time is as a fundamental concept, it does not need to. That is the role of philosophy and theoretical physics, and there are far more ideas on the nature of time than the limited one you allude to.Your pointless arguments are obscure, and detract from, the ideas I think you really want to make. You present them in a confused terminology, with an affected street talk, never focused and coherent. If you presented them in a clear manner, without the confused wording and background agenda, you would find more people agreeing with you in some areas. These ideas are not new to science or philosophy, but science has dealt with them and moved on. Reread ChiralSPO's post #17, try to understand what he is saying rather than misinterpreting it, it is an important message.As you insist on misinterpreting my posts, I see no point in writing them.
A rocket travels at c , a 1000 mile round trip, a clock on board shows a time dilation, the velocity is constant over a distance.
QuoteA rocket travels at c , a 1000 mile round trip, a clock on board shows a time dilation, the velocity is constant over a distance.Velocity cannot be constant for a round trip, by definition.
Sorry, mate, this is incoherent bullshit. Don't expect any further input from me.
The twin who returns from space as not aged less, both twins timing of their age remains at a constant and remains the same, however the twin who returned from space , had a slower ''metabolic decay'' of himself and will live slightly longer than is twin.
Quote from: Thebox on 15/05/2015 18:09:15The twin who returns from space as not aged less, both twins timing of their age remains at a constant and remains the same, however the twin who returned from space , had a slower ''metabolic decay'' of himself and will live slightly longer than is twin.That bit isn't bullsh**. The travelling twin has moved through less "time" of the "time" dimension, but has gone through just as much time of the Newtonian time which works along with the "time" dimension in order to co-ordinate the unfolding of events on different paths through Spacetime. The problem is that so people deny that a Newtonian time needs to be added to the model to make SR/GR work correctly because they are happy to work with a version of a theory which has a logical hole in it.
Dude no, The travelling twin has moved through the exact same amount of space -time , but a differential amount of arbitrary time to his dependent time and his twin brothers dependent time,
example twin 1 (t=123456789)twin 2 (t=12345678)
It is much easier to consider our time, existence , to be an allotted amount of time occupying space-time.
There is 2 times.
Quote from: Thebox on 17/05/2015 17:47:57Dude no, The travelling twin has moved through the exact same amount of space -time , but a differential amount of arbitrary time to his dependent time and his twin brothers dependent time,The travelling twin has moved through less of the "time" dimension kind of time, so you're wrong. If you're trying to describe things through some theory other than Einstein's though, don't use anything resembling the term Spacetime because that makes it look as if you're working with a model in which there is a "time" dimension, and if you are, the travelling twin is moving through less of that kind of time.Quoteexample twin 1 (t=123456789)twin 2 (t=12345678)If that's for a round trip, their clocks will record identical times and you are not working with this universe at all.QuoteIt is much easier to consider our time, existence , to be an allotted amount of time occupying space-time.The main choices are to have a Newtonian time with at least three space dimensions (as in LET); Spacetime with at least three space dimensions and one "time" dimension (as in SR/GR); or Spacetime with at least three space dimensions, one "time" dimension and a Newtonian time that works in combination with it (as in a more rational, modified version of SR/GR in which a universe can actually develop and mesh correctly).QuoteThere is 2 times.There are 2 times in just one of those models, but only one in the others. You may have another model in mind, of course, but it appears to be broken because your including Spacetime in it (in name only) without really including Spacetime in it at all.
I'm not even going to attempt to understand it.
Quote from: David Cooper on 17/05/2015 23:50:06I'm not even going to attempt to understand it.I will simplify
Quote from: Thebox on 18/05/2015 09:26:57Quote from: David Cooper on 17/05/2015 23:50:06I'm not even going to attempt to understand it.I will simplifyThere you are David. Couldn't be simpler than that!