The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 280751 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1500 on: 31/10/2015 08:51:05 »
You could think of it this way. Is there a limit to measuring that 'speed'? Assume a two way mirror experiment, but extremely small distance, shrink the distance. Will there be a limit for measuring that speed? There is a added difficulty to it though, if 'time' is about fractions, and presuming we are creatures of 'time', locally 'synchronized' to a constant 'c', can we even measure in between those 'fractions'? Presuming fractions to exist one then seem forced to stipulate some other 'dimensionality' to measure it from?

(We are indeed assuming 'perfect instruments' for this measuring btw. It's more of a logical exercise.)
==

and that is where 'patterns' come in, to me, not about 'relative motion' inside a 'universe' as much as about 'patterns' changing, under a arrow making it 'live'. And that in its turn will present you with another problem, how to connect this idea to the one of free will. and 'ethics' naturally :) Because in my universe both are existent, as I like it to be.
=

And yes, if this was possible it would make 'time' and 'c' into a 'flow', locally defined, presuming we can't measure 'in-between' that is.
« Last Edit: 31/10/2015 09:00:02 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1501 on: 31/10/2015 09:27:05 »
We could ignore ticks of that 'clock'. They are after all arbitrarily set any which way I look on it. It's about 'time' anyway, but would it then still define a flow locally measured? Unless you find a way to measure fractions, and 'inbetweens' I think it will hold as a flow, locally measured.
==

But then we come to the idea of a universe as a changing pattern, using a arrow of time. Would that also be a flow? One could think of it as a sheet possibly? In where we are projected, a 'universe coming to exist' in it. If it was this way I would go for fractions, describing it as a whole, still thinking of it as a flow locally defined though.
=

But using it this way, calling it a 'whole' as contrasted to a local description, I suspect I invoke more 'dimensions', don't I :)
« Last Edit: 31/10/2015 09:34:46 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1502 on: 31/10/2015 09:37:11 »
Now, where would you place those 'dimensions'?
Locally described, or imaginary?
=

We find four, locally described.

You could also name those as local constants, under some stipulations, as 'relative uniform motion' for example. They are constants in that motto that we all will agree on them, being in a same frame of reference. Length, Width, Height, and 'time'.
==

Actually this isn't what I was hoping to remember but maybe it will make me remember. And what it leads to is that everything we name a constant is a local measurement, shared by us all, no matter location or 'time'.
Let's try another question.

If one make a universe strictly local, its beginning a 'dimensionless point' containing 'constants', then find a way to connect it into 'dimensions', would it contain a 'whole logic', shared by all 'points'? Would it give us Lorentz equations?
=

Maybe reformulate the last to 'under what circumstances could it be expected to give us Lorentz equations?'
=

One point is that this universe of ours are a logic, that we agree on. It's not several logics as far as I can see. So even if the last question contain the idea of probabilities, the universe I see is what I get (TUISIWIG  for those loving acronym's). The way I think of 'locality' is defined by what I can measure, although the universe might contain more than that. It's about what my 'reality' should be seen as.
=
Another way to describe it is that what connects us are constants, locally defined. Those thinking that there are several types of 'clocks' for example are also invoking an idea of 'several logics' co-existing, making for a very convoluted universe. And yes, that 'clock' is also a local constant to me.
« Last Edit: 31/10/2015 10:35:12 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1503 on: 31/10/2015 10:56:20 »
There are some differences though between Length, Width, Height and 'Time'. One is that time is pointing only one way, the others point 'two ways', sort of, another, and to me altogether more interesting, is that without 'time' the rest won't exist. Well, not as far as I can imagine? And 'time' can be connected to your local measurement of 'c', in the manner of also being a local constant, as well as 'distance' becomes one, locally defined. (Otherwise a two mirror experiment won't mean a thing, neither will any measurement :)
=

We need constants, they are the logic we build on. And that it works to build on proves them.

And then: 'under what circumstances could it be expected to give us Lorentz equations?'

'gravity' and 'speeds', would that be satisfactory? Or should we change it to 'mass and speeds' at some given instant? Or 'energy density'?

Gravity is rather strange, but so are relative motion and accelerations. Relative motion is about a whole universe, created through comparisons made by you locally, including different time dilations depending on ones choice of comparison etc, with accelerations being identifiably local definitions. You can 'feel' a acceleration, you can't 'feel' a uniform motion.
« Last Edit: 31/10/2015 11:23:54 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1504 on: 31/10/2015 12:08:10 »
Entropy then?

Couldn't entropy be time? Against it, if you accept the local equivalence between 'c' and 'time'. Entropy can locally defined be seen to decrease as well as increase, the arrow has only one way. And would you expect, being in such an area, to find yourself remembering the future? Or would you expect everything to be as usual, with a two way experiment working flawlessly there too?

A rocket accelerating expends energy. Accelerating constantly uniformly we can according to the equivalence principle assume a 'new gravity' to come to exist inside that rocket, locally defined. So, is energy density here the same as gravity? It also loses mass, ejecting fuel to accelerate, so is mass and gravity the exact same? Locally defined?
=

What it seems as, to me then, is as if at least one type of accelerations is equivalent to gravity. Actually I presume all types of accelerations to be it :) but I can't prove it. But I don't see a local connection between a rockets mass and 'gravity', neither if I think of it as some 'energy density'.
=

The point here is the one about 'potential energy'. If that rocket accelerating hit something then the energy released would be increased, the further that acceleration had gone, according to some observer. But the same can then be said for uniform (relative) motions. Inside this rocket the light might be blue shifted from one direction, but equally red shifted from the other. As well as I use local definitions for this, local measurements that is.

Another point is that we've built our understanding from local measurements, giving us 'universal constants' and 'laws', as 'potential energy'. That's the universe we see, where 'clocks' ticks differently relative yours, but the constants you use defining it will be the same everywhere. So what creates it?
« Last Edit: 31/10/2015 12:43:00 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1505 on: 04/11/2015 20:33:52 »
Timey.

"Yor-on, what I am trying to get at is that "Do we have to feel so personally responsible?".... And if we do... assuming that we would even be politically capable of initiating such a change... if we all then became vegetarian, bicycle riding people who were willing to accept a far less consumer based existence, would it ultimately stop a warming process of the earth that was initiated long before the advent of the industrial revolution?"

I don't think so. It's a very hard question to do right, and I've been wondering about it too. In some way we're all responsible, but in the end it seems to fall down to if ones words is ones bond, to me that is :) I take it personally. Even when I can't control it. Because I think that my word is all that I will take with me.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1506 on: 04/11/2015 20:40:30 »
What I think I mean by that is empathy and ethics, One or the other, and it's not about local customs. to me it's about being a grown up, a real human being :)
 
Whatever that means.
=

Eh, that's about life in general btw. when it comes to global warming it should be sufficient too.
==

Otherwise expressed : We're all locked into patterns, if you're a driver you probably will need a car to get you to your work at time for example. Quitting that job won't solve global warming. And all the jobs relying on that driver delivering goods quitting won't solve it too. But we can change it, and we will if prompted by necessity. The real problem here is that when we find it necessary it may be to late.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2015 21:06:50 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1507 on: 04/11/2015 21:19:18 »
It depends. Life's a mystery Timey. But I don't think you need me to tell you that :)The way I see it, we're all doing as good as we can to cope. And, one more thing, all changes starts with oneself. It's actually biblical that one, and as true today as it was 2000 years ago. Not that popular though, now or then.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1508 on: 09/11/2015 19:30:29 »
Yor-on... Sorry, but circumstantial lack of internet connection has somewhat reduced my flow.

Ethics?

Have you seen:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4ou9rOssPg

Also good:
"The Untold History of America"
"Century of the Self"
"The True Cost"
"The House We Live In"
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1509 on: 16/11/2015 20:00:25 »
No problem Timey. I'll look into it, but I'm getting old, and most probable also set in my thoughts :)
I'm a lazy writer nowadays. Mostly when tired I write, or after lubricating whatever left ::))

I have some 'horses' I ride. If 'c' is a clock, describing time then most of the ideas about entropy being time should be wrong for example. When it comes to wars, people and ideals, especially ideologies I get nervous. Life is indeed a mystery, and the Higgs 'boson' do not explain it. Neither does a field, presuming the above.
« Last Edit: 16/11/2015 20:02:58 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1510 on: 16/11/2015 20:05:01 »
What I think I mean by it is that people don't ask themselves the right questions, possibly :)
They should ask themselves why.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1511 on: 16/11/2015 20:18:05 »
Why as in, why is time that way? How come we all take our 'local time' with us, no matter where we are? Time 'moves', and us with it, everywhere. What is a life? Why is it here? And is there a purpose to it? Can you spend other peoples life for your benefit? What does it make you if you do?
==

Expressed differently. One are born alone, and I think one die alone. Nobody will walk me at that journey, it's mine solely.
« Last Edit: 16/11/2015 20:31:21 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1512 on: 16/11/2015 20:23:13 »
To me it's about ethics, and physics. Somehow they goes hand in glove.
=

Physics is what makes us, ethics is what we explore. We don't like ethics as they set limits for our behavior, but we keep on exploring them.To me they seem as rules too, although of a different kind. Then again, what are thoughts?

« Last Edit: 16/11/2015 20:43:21 by yor_on »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1513 on: 16/11/2015 22:11:21 »
Hi there yor-on!

Lazy writer aye? (chuckle)...

In any case, internet communication is just yet another form of charging people money, in this case for the privilege of hanging out with each other.  This privilege 'is' still actually free of charge for real life interaction, however, these days it would seem that a lot of people feel safer keeping their interactions in the realms of the virtual.
I find internet communication's to be extremely slow and one dimensional myself.  All the subtle nuances of the human form, body language, tone of voice, tempo of delivery, and most importantly, eye contact, all reduced to paragraphs of often not very well written text.  Unlike the art of proper letter writing, these texts are mostly thrown out on the fly, subject to passing mood swings, and with little regard to the thoughts or feelings of the recipient/s.
It is true that when block studying a posters history of posts, a lot can be gleaned as to the character of that poster by reading in between the lines - but as to ongoing communications, too much gets lost in transmission in my opinion.
Having said this, I can see why people may prefer the buffer of safety in the fact of internet communications.  People are such prolific liars you see - this being why I personally find the company of animals and children to be much easier.  Some older people are ok too, having got to the point where they just don't give a damn and can be themselves with honesty...
...And here we can perhaps make a connection between physics and ethics through time, 'if you please', because lies are such a physical waste of time.

(my theory of time being regarding the phenomenon of time and its causation, rather than the measurement of the passing of time)

Entropy - the measurement of time is used as a means of the measurement of an increase in entropy rather than the phenomenon of time itself being entropy... The notion of the phenomenon of time being subject to entropy is interesting though :).

Why are we here?

The universe is but laughter, dust, and nothingness
The universe is of unreason known

O:)
« Last Edit: 16/11/2015 22:38:36 by timey »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1514 on: 17/11/2015 11:33:55 »
:)

Why not.? When it comes to why people lie I'm not sure, even as we all know it is a lie we behave as if it is a truth sometimes. Could be a need of belonging possibly, we're 'pack animals' as I gather. But there will be points in ones life when one will have to act alone, so we must be capable of those too. Also it could be a choice of what's more important for a individual. Then again, lies have this way of coming back to bite you in the ***.
==

What I'm referring to here are the 'accepters' of lies. Those creating them are another question, some people lack ethics, and compassion. They are of little minds but big needs. It depends on a lot of things, sometimes the scale of a lie may be what makes it a 'truth' for most people. And as none of us are perfect, well, as far as I know? One sometimes loses sight of the monumental lack of ethics shown by that kind of persons. Ones own personal honesty undermining ones outrage sort of.



« Last Edit: 17/11/2015 12:10:14 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1515 on: 18/11/2015 12:32:26 »
Let's play a game.

Assume that you can create life, or 'cultures'. You don't want them contaminated by mixing, what do you need?
'c'?

It becomes a box. Then assume a worm hole, somehow connected to a ship close to light speed. That becomes a time machine. From the worm hole you can step back in time to Terra, to jump 'forward' in time again, as described by the 'ancient light' reaching your ship close to 'c'.

Would that be acceptable?
Depends on what you think 'c' stands for, doesn't it :)

Myself I see it as a arrow, and a speed.
But maybe it's more than that, maybe it's a box.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1516 on: 18/11/2015 12:37:52 »
the point is, if it is a box, then the idea of some ships wormhole allowing us to step 'forward' in time should be stillborn. It can't be allowed, as it possibly might allow a species to rearrange a 'future', as described by the light reaching that ship. 'c' seems to put limitations on everything one can imagine.
=

What you need to consider here is the idea of the universe being information. In its clearest form everything becomes 'information', and the protocol used for it is 'c'. It's wrong to differ it in 'noise' and then information, to see why you might consider the difference between a analog recording versus a digital. The digital might give you the 'same' information with less 'noise', but the best recording will still be the analog, noise included. It seems more prudent to differ between useful information and 'un/non'-useful to me.


« Last Edit: 18/11/2015 12:52:26 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1517 on: 19/11/2015 12:27:38 »
It's a weird one alright. Still, if life the universe and all is 'information', presuming the protocol to be 'c' locally defined, then the information useful to us is the one in where we can communicate. That doesn't exclude observations just going one way,as the light from distant places and 'time' though, although it does, doesn't it? :) Anyway, you make a ship, it travels close to 'c'. Due to time dilation there should be a limit for a communication, meaning that at some point the information sent won't be received. Where you want to set the limit is depending on a lot of factors, some related to the way we behave in/with our primary spaceship (Earth), other related to pure astronomy and physics, as there being a limit for lights ability to reach Earth, considering the accelerating expansion we measure astronomically.

Making it a box and presuming isolation also means that we won't find any 'real aliens'. Whatever we are able to find should then presumably relate to our own chemistry etc, coming from a same origin. We're carbon based. It also depend on how you define 'alien life'. Intelligence? Or just life? Something self reproducing? Myself I think of intelligence when it comes to 'aliens'.
=

You could also use redshift to define a limit btw.
« Last Edit: 19/11/2015 12:35:47 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1518 on: 19/11/2015 12:48:48 »
If now light instead of propagating could be a set of information, displaced in time then? Would that decouple time from 'c'? 'c' still equal to an arrow, but not being 'time' itself? The only things that fit are local, when we can prove local measurements to fit with others local measurements, no matter where or when, we find it to be 'universal truths', aka constants. Still, the origins are all local. It's like wondering about if there is a 'ground beat' existing.
=

And that is where 'c' comes in, and quantum mechanics.

This is where one really benefit from taking a look at NIST and gravitational time dilations. We measure 'c' by using two mirrors, bouncing a 'beam of light' between them. The contraption being 'at rest' with the laboratory in where we measure, e.g  'Earth'. To that we have to add uniform motion, but we do not consider gravitational time dilations. 

« Last Edit: 19/11/2015 13:27:20 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1519 on: 19/11/2015 13:01:28 »
Should we?

Consider gravitational time dilations?
Defined macroscopically we can ignore them, but microscopically (quantum mechanically)?
=

Possibly this can be reduced to a question if there is a limit of scale, to measuring that speed.
« Last Edit: 19/11/2015 13:09:35 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1520 on: 19/11/2015 13:16:11 »
Assume :) there is a limit. And then furthermore assume that the equivalence between 'c' and your local arrow holds true there too. Would that then mean that when the possibility of proving a speed disappear, the arrow disappear too?
=

We have to assume 'perfect instruments' for measuring it naturally.
« Last Edit: 19/11/2015 13:20:51 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1521 on: 19/11/2015 13:24:01 »
Is there a 'ground beat'? If there is, would that be a universal, or a local, definition? It's all about mindsets, isn't it :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1522 on: 19/11/2015 13:35:41 »
You always need to differ between the observer and the observed, when it comes to questions about 'time. In this case a observer is a macroscopic object, and so 'exchanging information' in itself, making him a subject of time. What he measures on though is microscopic, where 'c' (and in this case presumably a arrow) disappear. It becomes rather tricky to keep those concepts apart, but it is needed. It also becomes a statement of there being contradiction of terms in measuring a 'stopped time' as it never 'stops' for the observer.
=

But if a arrow is equivalent to 'c', and 'c' can be proved to have a microscopic limit for measuring it then the question is valid.


« Last Edit: 19/11/2015 13:38:45 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1523 on: 19/11/2015 14:03:26 »
Assuming that 'c' and its arrow are equivalent, can there be a 'groundbeat'?

If there isn't, how then can we agree on time? Expressed differently: why will your local arrow always fit your environment? Add: why does it never change for you, locally measured?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1524 on: 19/11/2015 14:14:56 »
Maybe the best question would be: What sets constants?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1524 on: 19/11/2015 14:14:56 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums