Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: CZARCAR on 21/11/2009 05:05:23
-
cooling effects a molecular slowdown.
traveling near speed of light also effects an aging slowdown per einstein? wouldnt the slowed aging also involve a molecular slowdown?
-
cooling effects a molecular slowdown.
traveling near speed of light also effects an aging slowdown per einstein? wouldnt the slowed aging also involve a molecular slowdown?
Theoretically, yes.
-
The speeds of molecules are typically about the speed of sound, rather than the speed of light. The effect due to relativistic effects would be tiny.
-
Surely that is the actual reason for the slower aging associated with relativistic effects? As clocks travel, they slow down (relative to static clocks). Why would molecules be any different?
-
The speeds of molecules are typically about the speed of sound, rather than the speed of light. The effect due to relativistic effects would be tiny.
it would seem that the slowed aging of the traveling twin would be due to a slowed metabolism & molecular activity therein associated?
-
it would seem that the slowed aging of the traveling twin would be due to a slowed metabolism & molecular activity therein associated?
I believe that is correct. For the traveler, time itself is passing more slowly than it is for the stationary twin. Therefore, all activity - atomic, molecular, etc., etc., is relatively slower. Of course, the traveler is completely unaware of this. In fact, it is impossible for the traveler to measure any difference in the rate at which time elapses.
(At least, that's my understanding! I'm an engineer, not a scientist.)
-
Theoretically, yes.
The predictions of the theory have been confirmed experimentally on many occasions. GPS systems have to take the effect into account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
-
if so i am looking at 2 opposites to find the same result=?
1-energy removal via cooling on earth results in slowed molecular activity
2- increased energy of the faster spaceship results in slowed molecular activity
-
You are forgetting one important thing RELATIVITY the effects of time dilation ONLY apply to objects that are travelling at high speeds with respect to each other therefore the individual molecules in an object are travelling at low velocities with respect to each other and there is no significant change. travelling near the speed of light has absolutely no effect on the molecules in the object that is travelling at high speed. It is this vital fact that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and for objects travelling at high speed and the velocity of light is fixed that creates these relatavistic effects.
-
You are forgetting one important thing RELATIVITY the effects of time dilation ONLY apply to objects that are travelling at high speeds with respect to each other therefore the individual molecules in an object are travelling at low velocities with respect to each other and there is no significant change. travelling near the speed of light has absolutely no effect on the molecules in the object that is travelling at high speed. It is this vital fact that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and for objects travelling at high speed and the velocity of light is fixed that creates these relatavistic effects.
the traveling twin returns younger than the stationary twin, the metabolic rate must have slowed?
-
No it has NOT it is just that the fast moving twin has moved through LESS TIME than the stationary one because it has moved through MORE SPACE. The critical difference between the lives of the two twins is the acceleration and deceleration that is required to go quickly.
This may be counterintuitive but it is correct
-
travelling near the speed of light has absolutely no effect on the molecules in the object that is travelling at high speed.
I don't think so. If it has no effect, how do you explain the difference between the two clocks in the well known experiment? Bear in mind, these are atomic clocks.
Relatively, less time has elapsed for the traveler. The metabolic rate will be the same for both twins from their perspective because, from their perspectives, there has been no change in the rate at which time passes. However, because their relative elapsed times are actually different, the relative amount of metabolization must indeed be different.
-
... the relative amount of metabolization must indeed be different.
half-lifes are different, e.g. muons ...
When a cosmic ray proton impacts atomic nuclei of air atoms in the upper atmosphere, pions are created. These decay within a relatively short distance (meters) into muons (the pion's preferred decay product), and neutrinos. The muons from these high energy cosmic rays, generally continuing essentially in the same direction as the original proton, do so at very high velocities [~0.998c]. Although their lifetime without relativistic effects would allow a half-survival distance of only about 0.66 km at most, the time dilation effect of special relativity allows cosmic ray secondary muons to survive the flight to the earth's surface.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon#Muon_sources
-
The extended life is only from our stationary point of view. The fast moving muon decays in the same time as if it was stationary from its point of view. this proves that the fast moving particle does not experience itself a slowing down of time
-
does jetlag have biophysical effects? might this apply?
-
does jetlag have biophysical effects? might this apply?
Well, jetlag does have effects, but not for this reason. At aircraft speeds the effects are incredibly small, and very difficult to actually measure (see experiment referenced above).
-
The extended life is only from our stationary point of view. The fast moving muon decays in the same time as if it was stationary from its point of view. this proves that the fast moving particle does not experience itself a slowing down of time
Precisely! That's why it's called RELATIVITY. There is no way to measure "time" per se. We evaluate time based on the motion of things in space, be they pendulums or electrons. Because of this, a stationary muon (if there can be such a thing) and a fast moving muon will decay at different rates RELATIVE to each other. Likewise with humans. "Absolute" time is an illusion that we have created for ourselves.
In the case of the twins, who's to say the traveler's life is "extended"? From his perspective, everything is quite normal, except that his twin suddenly seems to look a lot older than he does (because he is!). From the traveler's perspective, his stationary twin's life has been considerably "shortened", even although from the perspective of the stationary twin, it has not been.
-
assuming an unchanged metabolic rate & that the twins' hearts are good for 100 ticks, the twins rejoin @ 99 ticks & both die on the next tick [heart worn out]. the traveling twin will have died "younger"?
-
similarly? each twin has a block of ice, the ice in the ship would melt in less time/faster than the ice on earth?
-
assuming an unchanged metabolic rate & that the twins' hearts are good for 100 ticks, the twins rejoin @ 99 ticks & both die on the next tick [heart worn out]. the traveling twin will have died "younger"?
If each twin was good for 100 ticks of their tickers, assuming the travelling twin moved through space really fast, he might only have reached 97 ticks when he meets with his twin again, but the stationary twin would be at 99 ticks.
From each twin's perspective, his metabolism is unaffected and identical to his twin. However, their relative metabolisms really are different. The stationary twin will expire 2 second sooner.
The term "rate" could be confusing. The metabolic rate of each twin is equal relative to each ones frame of reference, but it is not equal relative to each other's frames of reference. Time really does pass more slowly for the traveller relative to the static twin, but because time itself passes more slowly, it is impossible for the traveler to know it is passing more slowly within his frame of reference. How could he know? Everything is effected.
For example, if the static twin could magically observe his traveling twin, he would notice that the twin's voice is a bit deeper than usual because he is hearing it relative to his timeframe. However, the traveler would not notice anything unusual at all. Frequency is a function of time, so even although the waves are stretched from the static twin's perspective, they are not stretched from the travelers perspective.
-
assuming an unchanged metabolic rate & that the twins' hearts are good for 100 ticks, the twins rejoin @ 99 ticks & both die on the next tick [heart worn out]. the traveling twin will have died "younger"?
If each twin was good for 100 ticks of their tickers, assuming the travelling twin moved through space really fast, he might only have reached 97 ticks when he meets with his twin again, but the stationary twin would be at 99 ticks.
From each twin's perspective, his metabolism is unaffected and identical to his twin. However, their relative metabolisms really are different. The stationary twin will expire 2 second sooner.
The term "rate" could be confusing. The metabolic rate of each twin is equal relative to each ones frame of reference, but it is not equal relative to each other's frames of reference. Time really does pass more slowly for the traveller relative to the static twin, but because time itself passes more slowly, it is impossible for the traveler to know it is passing more slowly within his frame of reference. How could he know? Everything is effected.
For example, if the static twin could magically observe his traveling twin, he would notice that the twin's voice is a bit deeper than usual because he is hearing it relative to his timeframe. However, the traveler would not notice anything unusual at all. Frequency is a function of time, so even although the waves are stretched from the static twin's perspective, they are not stretched from the travelers perspective.
if the metabolic rate of the traveler has been affected then its effect is similar to cooling on earth?
-
Nope. The metabolic rate of the traveler was not affected relative to the traveler. It's dangerous to use rate because it implies a constant time reference. In this situation, there is none.
(Done blame me! These are not my rules [:D])
-
lemme resort to water which is common to both ice & the twins.
assume that 1sec. in the ship = 2sec. on earth
the rate of the heartbeat of the water is 1/2sec. on earth but i can get to 1/1sec. [like on the ship] by lowering or raising the temp of the water on earth?
-
I don't think so. The rate of the heartbeat of water is the same on the earth as it is in the ship.
Back to your original question, no, there is no molecular "slow down". That would suggest the activity of the molecules is less in a certain amout of time. But that is not the case. Relative to the time frame of those molecules, the activity is just the same as the same molecules in the same amount of time in any other time frame.
Just as "There ain't a no Sanity Clause", "There ain't a no such thing as time".
Consider a photon (or an energy packet, or a propagating spatial distortion, or a whatever you would like to call it):
How long does it take the photon to travel one thousand light years?
Dumb question - obviously one thousand years. But from the photon's "perspective", it took no time at all - literally! It arrived as soon as it departed.
-
1 btu= 1btu
2 sealed containers [1 with each twin] with water & electric heating elements are compared.
assuming that 1 space sec.= 2 earth sec. the affect of time dilation in space can be simulated on earth by doubling the heatring of the container on earth so that
earth container is heating @ 2btu/2sec. = 1btu/1sec.=
space container is heating @ 1btu/1sec.
this seeming correlation between time dilation @ thermal i will call the "Felix Folly" [FF] for further reference, ok?
-
Felix Folly works for me [:D]
It looks to me that both containers are receiving thermal energy at the same rate (bearing in mind that "rate" is only meaningful in each ones frame.
Let's say the traveler spent 1,000 seconds traveling. His container receives 1000 btu (we should really use kJ!)
Meanwhile back on Earth, that twin's container received 2000 btu when his twin returns to Earth.
So, you could say that the traveler has only used half as much energy as the non-traveler, even though they both used energy at the same rate.
I'm not sure if this helps because I can't really remember what we are trying to establish! [:D]
-
No, inside whatever frame you are your heart will beat 'the same' as measured in it, no matter what that frame of reference is, near a neutron star or the moon, or 'speed'.
The age difference will only become obvious in a 'twin experiment' and if your heart contain one million 'beats' before you die then that 'million' will be what it ticks, no matter your frame of reference.
-
No, inside whatever frame you are your heart will beat 'the same' as measured in it, no matter what that frame of reference is, near a neutron star or the moon, or 'speed'.
The age difference will only become obvious in a 'twin experiment' and if your heart contain one million 'beats' before you die then that 'million' will be what it ticks, no matter your frame of reference.
Assuming your "No" is answering the original question, then what you say is true. However, relative to each other, they are no longer the same age, so there had to be a relative "slow down" (and relative "speed up")
-
No, inside whatever frame you are your heart will beat 'the same' as measured in it, no matter what that frame of reference is, near a neutron star or the moon, or 'speed'.
The age difference will only become obvious in a 'twin experiment' and if your heart contain one million 'beats' before you die then that 'million' will be what it ticks, no matter your frame of reference.
Sounds very deterministic for your ''hypothetical'' number of heart beats. By that logic, everyone's heartbeat should be predeterministically-known somehow.
-
Sounds very deterministic for your ''hypothetical'' number of heart beats. By that logic, everyone's heartbeat should be predeterministically-known somehow.
Mr S, I think you may be introducing a wee bit of a "red herring" here. I doubt that he was suggesting for a minute (relative to my time frame of course) that anyones number of heartbeats can be predetermined. This is just an artifact of the assumption, for the purposes of the experiment, that the "twins" are absolutely identical in every respect, which, as you point out, is highly improbable.
-
No, inside whatever frame you are your heart will beat 'the same' as measured in it, no matter what that frame of reference is, near a neutron star or the moon, or 'speed'.
The age difference will only become obvious in a 'twin experiment' and if your heart contain one million 'beats' before you die then that 'million' will be what it ticks, no matter your frame of reference.
Assuming your "No" is answering the original question, then what you say is true. However, relative to each other, they are no longer the same age, so there had to be a relative "slow down" (and relative "speed up")
No :)
It's about frames of reference. It's like every one of those frames is a 'bubble of time'. Normally :) we don't notice that different frames will change our 'age' relative each other. And this thing called 'frames of reference' is to me a very slippery definition too as you always will be able to go up or down in size in every frame you define and so be able to say that even what you first called your 'frame of reference' when 'split apart' into smaller constituents will have a different 'aging' to it. That's one of the main headaches for me.
But never the less, it's not about 'time' slowing down on it's own. It's about comparing two frames of reference relative each other before and after an acceleration (twin experiment).
There is a difference. If you accept that you in whatever frame you are will find your heartbeat being the same as measured by your clock then you also must accept that the 'time' inside that frame hasn't changed for you.
What has changed is the time relative, ah, whatever other frame you compare it against, before acceleration and after :) And as I said, it's a very slippery subject.
-
No :)
It's about frames of reference. It's like every one of those frames is a 'bubble of time'. Normally :) we don't notice that different frames will change our 'age' relative each other. And this thing called 'frames of reference' is to me a very slippery definition too as you always will be able to go up or down in size in every frame you define and so be able to say that even what you first called your 'frame of reference' when 'split apart' into smaller constituents will have a different 'aging' to it. That's one of the main headaches for me.
But never the less, it's not about 'time' slowing down on it's own. It's about comparing two frames of reference relative each other before and after an acceleration (twin experiment).
There is a difference. If you accept that you in whatever frame you are will find your heartbeat being the same as measured by your clock then you also must accept that the 'time' inside that frame hasn't changed for you.
What has changed is the time relative, ah, whatever other frame you compare it against, before acceleration and after :) And as I said, it's a very slippery subject.
Arrrggghhhh! That's why I keep saying the term "rate" can only apply locally.
Apart from the fact that you said it differently, I can't see any difference between what I said and you said. What am I missing?
-
It depends :)
If you are arguing that there has to be a slower and a faster time and that the proof of that is to compare two frames, where we then can define one as now being slower (Twin paradox)
And then from that draws the conclusion that the slower frame must have been slowed down 'in itself' without any need of 'comparing frames' then you are wrong.
That is what the heartbeat illustrates. But it's a very slippery subject.
You could look at time as matter, including its momentum/relative mass. If you think of it that way you will see how different speeds 'collects' time and creates the twin paradox.
But it doesn't explain the coherence we can see when we observe all objects moving, at different speeds and mass and still get that coherent picture. Or maybe it does?
Or maybe not :)
This gives me a headache ::))
-
No, I am not saying it is possible to detect a difference in time within a frame. There is none. How could we possibly detect a difference? Everything within a frame is affected by local spacetime.
Come to that, how do we even know time is "constant" in our frame. It could be varying erratically relative to another frame, but how we we ever know? We assume it is constant, but that might not be an entirely safe assumption.
-
Nice thinking Geezer. Now we're cooking.
Perfectly correct as I see it.
There is no real definition of time that I can see, in fact I kind of like to see it as directly correlated to momentum and 'invariant mass/restmass' but also as a 'whole', that is, not split up in any way although you will get different results when comparing those arbitrary defined frames against each other depending on speed, mass and momentum.
Time seems to contain an innumerable amount of 'time bubbles' just waiting on your definition of a 'frame' but still we perceive it as a 'whole' at all times.
-
But then again, I differ between 'the arrow of time' and 'time' in itself. Maybe what we see as its 'arrow' is a direct consequence of 'mass'?
-
We only seem to be able to quantify time in terms of a change in something. Energy, position, anything else?
Does this have anything to do with quantum effects? In other words, at small enough scales, is it impossible to predict the precise position of, for example, electrons, because time at atomic scales "jitters" (for want of a better word) relative to our scale?
Do electrons have very predictable motion relative to their time?
Beats me [:D]
-
As I said, we're cooking here :)
I guess you're quite close to how I see time there. As you said, on a subatomic scale time appears different. I call it emergence, it's the new 'catch word' I think :)
For me times arrow is a direct result of our macroscopic world. And the further down we go in 'size' the more questionable that arrow seems to become.
-----
But it will still exist, nota bene. 'Time' is still there, but the arrow isn't.
Why I say that?
That's because without time there can be nothing observed. So when a Feynman diagram can go both ways there is still the underlying element of 'time' there but the arrow seems to dissapear into something more questionable.
-
Wow! Is the idea that time "jitter" accounts for observed quantum effects well accepted in the physics community? Surely somebody must have tested that to see if it accounts for differences we observe at different scales? After all, it's been well known for a long "time" that time is not a universal constant.
(BTW, I would not know a Feynman diagram from a wiring diagram.)
-
Don't really know that.
It's how I see it. But you have Feynman diagrams in where time can be seen to go two ways simultaneously delivering different outcomes. There are also physicists speculating in 'time' going backwards to create some observable phenomena. I don't have a link to that though.
The subatomic 'jitter' you are thinking of I see as 'emergences' instead, creating new properties, same as water if cooled creates ice. And from those properties when we go up in size we will get our arrow automatically.
But the emergences are very much like black body radiation, that is 'jumping' from one 'level' to another, not smooth like when you turn on your water tap.
Maybe you will like this link. It tells the story behind Feynman diagrams.
http://web.mit.edu/dikaiser/www/FdsAmSci.pdf
-
twins arre in 2 rockets 1 traveling 2x as fast as the other or whatever. though traveling at constant speeds, the fast rocket is accelerating away from the slow1 as the distance between the 2 rockets increases as they cruise. the fast rocket is encompassing more space.
the slow twin gets 2 sealed ELASTIC containers. 1 container gets 1btu/sec. & the other gets 2btu/sec. the 2btu/sec. container expands faster & encompasses more space like the fast rocket encompassing more space? the fast rocket is encompassing more space in an accelerational manner but is the 2btu/sec. container also expanding in an accelerational manner? [like gas law on earth which i dont remember]
-
cooling effects a molecular slowdown.
traveling near speed of light also effects an aging slowdown per einstein? wouldnt the slowed aging also involve a molecular slowdown?
Can i make it known, if you don't mind, that a very long time ago that i made a prediction that the assumptions made by relativity could be found to be erreneous. I based the idea on the fact that everything remains relative, even down to the molecular level. Would it surprise many to find in some distant future when this technoogy is available to experiment on the macroscopic level, that when one twin moves at relativistic speeds from earth and returns, to find his age has asymptotically-aged - so there is no difference between his twin?
I want it also known, that when i said this could be an inconsistency, i was ridiculed horribly.
-
Can i make it known, if you don't mind, that a very long time ago that i made a prediction that the assumptions made by relativity could be found to be erreneous. I based the idea on the fact that everything remains relative, even down to the molecular level. Would it surprise many to find in some distant future when this technoogy is available to experiment on the macroscopic level, that when one twin moves at relativistic speeds from earth and returns, to find his age has asymptotically-aged - so there is no difference between his twin?
I want it also known, that when i said this could be an inconsistency, i was ridiculed horribly.
You certainly can. I do have a question though. How do you explain the difference in time between two atomic clocks? (See aeroplane experiment referenced above). Also, the same effect is observed with clocks on GPS systems. I understand that the relativistic effects between the terrestrial oscillators (clocks) and the oscillators on GPS satellites have to be factored into the calculations to eliminate significant positional errors. It is not necessary to travel at near lightspeed to observe the phenomena.
A theory should account for experimental and practical observations.
-
At the time, i speculated that atomic clocks where not an incorrect proposition. Only macroscopic bodies caused the problem for me. How do we know a collection of paticles do not age asymptotically rather than one being atomic?
-
Macroscopic bodies are composed of atoms. Why would those atoms be affected any differently than the atoms in atomic clocks?
-
Macroscopic bodies are composed of atoms. Why would those atoms be affected any differently than the atoms in atomic clocks?
The same question in a way which has puzzled scientists for well over 100 years. Why do singular or even slight groups of loose particles exhibit a wavelength when its waveform seems to dissipate at macroscopic-sized bodies.
-
Are you saying that a macroscopic mechanical clock, if it was possible to construct one that was sufficiently accurate, would report a different time from an atomic clock?
-
I speculate at best.
-
It may not be impossible to conduct the experiment. I'm a bit behind on high stability clock technology, but these days it might be possible to build a non-atomic clock that is sufficiently stable to conduct a test on a satellite. Would a crystal consisting of a millions of molecules be sufficiently macroscopic for the test?
-
It may not be impossible to conduct the experiment. I'm a bit behind on high stability clock technology, but these days it might be possible to build a non-atomic clock that is sufficiently stable to conduct a test on a satellite. Would a crystal consisting of a millions of molecules be sufficiently macroscopic for the test?
It's not impossible... It requires quite a lot of energy though, and by conventional wisdom, would far exceed a spacecrafts capabilies.
-
It may not be impossible to conduct the experiment. I'm a bit behind on high stability clock technology, but these days it might be possible to build a non-atomic clock that is sufficiently stable to conduct a test on a satellite. Would a crystal consisting of a millions of molecules be sufficiently macroscopic for the test?
It's not impossible... It requires quite a lot of energy though, and by conventional wisdom, would far exceed a spacecrafts capabilies.
I'm not suggesting that the clock would have to travel very fast. The experiment would be to put an atomic clock and a crystal clock on a satellite, or even an aircraft, and see if they keep the same time or not. However, I'm not confident state-of-the-art crystal clocks (crystal oscillators) are sufficiently stable to conduct such an experiment.
-
No. But i am. I am still waiting for the macroscopic twin experiment to be performed to a high-speed or relativistic accuracy. Not those which involve non-organic components.
-
Then perhaps you better explain exactly what you mean by "macroscopic". Your earlier definition implied that non-macroscopic was limited to a small number of atoms (as in the atoms in an atomic clock).
By that definition a crystal oscillator is clearly macroscopic.
Apparently, we are now required to accept that macroscopic (by your definition) only applies to organic components.
Would you kindly make up your mind and define what you mean by "macroscopic".
Perhaps it only applies during months that do not include an "R".
-
I had hoped you might have come to realize i am specifically talking about humans that can internally-experience time.
-
OK. Are you limiting it to humans, or would other animals experience the same phenomenon?
-
OK. Are you limiting it to humans, or would other animals experience the same phenomenon?
Only to humans. I have no other evidence that animals experience and know the passing of some time.
-
What about the experiments with the atomic clocks where humans were in the same plane as an atomic clock. Isn't that a test with humans involved?
-
OK. Are you limiting it to humans, or would other animals experience the same phenomenon?
Only to humans. I have no other evidence that animals experience and know the passing of some time.
Dogs maybe? Our Scottie gets fed at the same times every day. She starts whining like crazy if we are late with her food.
-
What about the experiments with the atomic clocks where humans were in the same plane as an atomic clock. Isn't that a test with humans involved?
Does no one ******** listen here????
Lee was right - no one reads the threads before answering. I said, and for the very last time ''time delay on an extreme record''. Humans have not experienced that yet.
-
What about the experiments with the atomic clocks where humans were in the same plane as an atomic clock. Isn't that a test with humans involved?
Does no one ******** listen here????
Lee was right - no one reads the threads before answering. I said, and for the very last time ''time delay on an extreme record''. Humans have not experienced that yet.
Obviously, we can't listen, but we can read. I just did a search on "time delay on an extreme record", and the only occurrence is in your latest post. Perhaps you said something else.
Anyway, what about dogs?
-
What about the experiments with the atomic clocks where humans were in the same plane as an atomic clock. Isn't that a test with humans involved?
Does no one ******** listen here????
Lee was right - no one reads the threads before answering. I said, and for the very last time ''time delay on an extreme record''. Humans have not experienced that yet.
Obviously, we can't listen, but we can read. I just did a search on "time delay on an extreme record", and the only occurrence is in your latest post. Perhaps you said something else.
Anyway, what about dogs?
I have no thoughts on dogs. I am not a dog, so i am not aware if they would even know a lapse in time has occurred.
-
But surely, as a scientist, you must consider all the data available. It seems my dog has a rather accute sense of time. Are you saying that data is invalid?
-
But surely, as a scientist, you must consider all the data available. It seems my dog has a rather accute sense of time. Are you saying that data is invalid?
No, i'm saying that it would be incomplete as to suggest we can fully understand what is going on in a dogs head. Animals can be conditioned to life, for instance as to never really know what a time is all about.
-
But surely, as a scientist, you must consider all the data available. It seems my dog has a rather acute sense of time. Are you saying that data is invalid?
No, i'm saying that it would be incomplete as to suggest we can fully understand what is going on in a dogs head. Animals can be conditioned to life, for instance as to never really know what a time is all about.
That's certainly true. Dogs are susceptible to conditioning. But I don't think we should underestimate their innate sense of time and place. For example, Shona, our Scottie, stands on her hind legs and bears her teeth to smile at people, just as a human would do. Nobody trained her to do this. Either she figured it out for herself, or it's a genetic characteristic. Either way, it is most endearing, so we probably spoil her.
Anyway, why would we suppose that we can understand what is going on inside a human cranium any more than we can understand what is going on inside a canine cranium? Are humans any less conditioned than dogs?
-
But surely, as a scientist, you must consider all the data available. It seems my dog has a rather acute sense of time. Are you saying that data is invalid?
No, i'm saying that it would be incomplete as to suggest we can fully understand what is going on in a dogs head. Animals can be conditioned to life, for instance as to never really know what a time is all about.
That's certainly true. Dogs are susceptible to conditioning. But I don't think we should underestimate their innate sense of time and place. For example, Shona, our Scottie, stands on her hind legs and bears her teeth to smile at people, just as a human would do. Nobody trained her to do this. Either she figured it out for herself, or it's a genetic characteristic. Either way, it is most endearing, so we probably spoil her.
Anyway, why would we suppose that we can understand what is going on inside a human cranium any more than we can understand what is going on inside a canine cranium? Are humans any less conditioned than dogs?
Ever heard of self-reflection theory? About three animals in the kingdom have this level of intellect, such as a Dolphin, Elephants and Monkeys - including ourselves; dogs are rather thick on this level of intelligence. But again,i dare not speculate any temperal feelings for the animals, not that i deny them for the three examples given above.. it's just that i'm too *****-whipped to decide publically.
-
I'm sure you enjoy the use of all your limbs. If you would like to continue using them, I suggest you do not let Shona hear you describing her as "thick".
She might wish to direct some comments at you. I will endeavour to translate them on her behalf.
Joking aside (I'll try to persuade Shona you were only joking), I think you are postulating that everything is susceptible to time dilation except humans because they are aware of time.
Did I get it right, or is there another caveat that is yet to be revealed? I'm afraid my clairvoyance engine is in the shop at the moment.
-
I'm sure you enjoy the use of all your limbs. If you would like to continue using them, I suggest you do not let Shona hear you describing her as "thick".
She might wish to direct some comments at you. I will endeavour to translate them on her behalf.
Joking aside (I'll try to persuade Shona you were only joking), I think you are postulating that everything is susceptible to time dilation except humans because they are aware of time.
Did I get it right, or is there another caveat that is yet to be revealed? I'm afraid my clairvoyance engine is in the shop at the moment.
lol; ok where i have bolded... you mean me?
-
Naturellement.
-
Then no. :s
-
OK. I give up.
Please desribe your theory.
-
What theory? All i have said is that physics surprises us at nearly every corner. All i said that is biological entities may not atually be able to endure an extreem effect of time-dilation. It's not a theory, just a speculation on what we don't know.
-
Ah ha!
Now we have biological entities.
That would include Shona, right?
-
Ah ha!
Now we have biological entities.
That would include Shona, right?
Remember, i'm not bold enough to make such a conjecture.
-
Suddenly so coy? How about a yes or no. You seemed sure of your convictions quite recently.
-
What theory? All i have said is that physics surprises us at nearly every corner. All i said that is biological entities may not atually be able to endure an extreem effect of time-dilation. It's not a theory, just a speculation on what we don't know.
It's a speculation that goes against everything we do know. You have speculating, against all evidence to the contrary, that biological systems have special laws of physics.
-
What theory? All i have said is that physics surprises us at nearly every corner. All i said that is biological entities may not atually be able to endure an extreem effect of time-dilation. It's not a theory, just a speculation on what we don't know.
It's a speculation that goes against everything we do know. You have speculating, against all evidence to the contrary, that biological systems have special laws of physics.
How can we specalate and (hence the and) postulate to an absolute degree of certainty that biological systems can?
-
How can we specalate and (hence the and) postulate to an absolute degree of certainty that biological systems can?
I have news for you: you are right now undergoing extreme (z>1) redshift. The redshift that you are undergoing is dependent on choice of coordinates, so anytime a calculation is done in certain systems of coordinates, you experience extreme redshift.
-
How can we specalate and (hence the and) postulate to an absolute degree of certainty that biological systems can?
I have news for you: you are right now undergoing extreme (z>1) redshift. The redshift that you are undergoing is dependent on choice of coordinates, so anytime a calculation is done in certain systems of coordinates, you experience extreme redshift.
Now you are talking mash-potatoes.
-
Oh!!!! - thatb reminds me of the tune from this:
Give me, Give me, Give me, some crazy tonight... lalalalllaaaa lol
-
Now you are talking mash-potatoes.
In the sense that I am talking about the very basic foundations of relativity theory, yes.
-
Then there is no debate anymore :)
-
Give me, Give me, Give me, some crazy tonight... lalalalllaaaa lol
I see the meds are having an effect. Do you think you should be driving a computer?
-
I don't. It drives me ;)