Time Explained

[newolder]

... after 76 years, there's no evidence for dark matter either.

Where have you looked?

(Submitted on 4 Jan 2010)
Dark matter has been introduced to explain many independent gravitational effects at different astronomical scales, in galaxies, groups of galaxies, clusters, superclusters and even across the full horizon. This review describes the accumulated astronomical, astrophysical, and cosmological evidence for dark matter. It is written at a non-specialist level and intended for an audience with little or only partial knowledge of astrophysics or cosmology.

source

[Farsight]

Farsight, what would you consider acceptable evidence of dark matter? Something like this? Cryogenic Dark Matter Search - Wikipedia

Yes, I'd find that acceptable. I really am very evidential. But CDMS II are looking for WIMPs, and they're not finding them. See http://cdms.berkeley.edu/. The two events created some publicity last December, but it was something of a disappointment, and there's been trouble with Xenon100 of late, see http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ark-matter.

One can work out patterns of distribution of dark matter from stars' velocity distributions and gravitational lensing. One can also try to see if modifying gravity can produce the same patterns.

And one can adhere to Einstein's general relativity, where he described a gravitational field as inhomogeneous space. But people don't, and instead apply an assumption that space is homogeneous, which then has people assuming that there's additional particulate matter present. There just doesn't have to be. A patch of "denser" space will do it. I really mean this. Take a look at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node7.html where the first paragraph includes this:

Let us assume the universe is not only expanding but also homogeneous and isotropic. The expansion of the universe is vouched for by the redshifts of distant galaxies. The other assumptions also seem to be approximately correct, at least when we average over small-scale inhomogeneities such as stars and galaxies. For simplicity, we will imagine the universe is homogeneous and isotropic even on small scales.

See the rest of the article, then clap your hand to your forehead. If the universe was homogeneous and isotropic even on small scales, there wouldn't be any gravitational fields, and those equations of motion would give straight-line motion.

Farsight, thank you for destroying one of your favorite arguments against time. We don't perceive magnetic fields. We infer their existence from observable effects. I tried seeing if I could perceive the magnetic field of a refrigerator magnet. I failed.

Oh that's pathetic, lpetrich. I've got some neodymium magnets. And let me tell you, there's no problem perceiving that magnetic field whatsoever. The repulsion is terrific, and you can feel that there's something there. You can feel the magnetic field. Now come on. You can see that space between your hands, and you can feel it when there isn't a space beween your hands. And when you waggle your hands you can see the motion of yours hands, and feel it. But you can't see time flowing, and you can't feel it either or perceive it in any way. Ditto for travelling forwards through time. It just isn't happening, it's all just one big figure of speech. Now get a grip, forget the fairy tales and and look at the evidence. What's there is space and motion through it, and time is a measure of that motion.

Also, do we directly perceive 3D positions? We don't -- our eyes only return directions relative to them.

You do this via grasp or feel rather than vision. 3D geometry is difficult unless you've had practice at it.

[ChildInAZoo]

And one can adhere to Einstein's general relativity, where he described a gravitational field as inhomogeneous space. But people don't, and instead apply an assumption that space is homogeneous, which then has people assuming that there's additional particulate matter present. There just doesn't have to be. A patch of "denser" space will do it. I really mean this.

There is no doubt that you mean this. However, you haven't shown how this prediction of yours matches the observations. Show us your predictions, show us the observations relevant to your predictions.

Take a look at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node7.html where the first paragraph includes this:

Let us assume the universe is not only expanding but also homogeneous and isotropic. The expansion of the universe is vouched for by the redshifts of distant galaxies. The other assumptions also seem to be approximately correct, at least when we average over small-scale inhomogeneities such as stars and galaxies. For simplicity, we will imagine the universe is homogeneous and isotropic even on small scales.

See the rest of the article, then clap your hand to your forehead. If the universe was homogeneous and isotropic even on small scales, there wouldn't be any gravitational fields, and those equations of motion would give straight-line motion.

This is another prediction and also a claim about the mathematics of relativity theory. Show us your work. (You might also want to actually consult the science that Einstein wrote, since he worked out the basics of a homogeneous model of the universe in 1916.) Regardless, this cosmological stuff doesn't matter to measurements of gravitational anomalies in the rotations of galaxies and galaxy clusters. These are not very sensitive to different cosmological models.

[lpetrich]

And one can adhere to Einstein's general relativity, where he described a gravitational field as inhomogeneous space. But people don't, and instead apply an assumption that space is homogeneous, which then has people assuming that there's additional particulate matter present. There just doesn't have to be. A patch of "denser" space will do it.

Einstein's equations can have spatially-homogeneous solutions.

See the rest of the article, then clap your hand to your forehead. If the universe was homogeneous and isotropic even on small scales, there wouldn't be any gravitational fields, and those equations of motion would give straight-line motion.

That homogeneity is an approximation, and a rather good one, it must be said. But it is nevertheless an approximation, and the existence of primordial fluctuations has been acknowledged for some time. Inflationary cosmology is a proposed way of accounting for those fluctuations.

Farsight, thank you for destroying one of your favorite arguments against time. We don't perceive magnetic fields. We infer their existence from observable effects. I tried seeing if I could perceive the magnetic field of a refrigerator magnet. I failed.

Oh that's pathetic, lpetrich. I've got some neodymium magnets. And let me tell you, there's no problem perceiving that magnetic field whatsoever. The repulsion is terrific, and you can feel that there's something there. You can feel the magnetic field. Now come on.

That's not quite the same thing as directly perceiving a magnetic field.

You can see that space between your hands, and you can feel it when there isn't a space beween your hands. And when you waggle your hands you can see the motion of yours hands, and feel it.

We don't directly see motion. We more-or-less see a series of snapshots, which we interpret as motion.

[Achtland]

right i am not following this
can you start again

[Twiglet]

Experiments measure changes. Without a change taking place, there is nothing to track when our measurement has happened. Whether thats the tick of a clock, or a number of Caesium decays or whatever. Philosophically, the only measure of time is change.

The science comes in by looking at experimental evidence, which very strongly points to there being a correlation about how different observers perceive and measure time. Experiments are repeated in different places and times under the same sets of conditions, and results are found to agree. That's very compelling.

Moreover there does seem to be, experimentally, an absolute correlation of how time is experienced. Leaving aside relativity (which really helps to describe how time is stretched out for one person, relative to another, depending on various considerations about gravity and motion), two people who synchronise accurate watches and then go off to do different places and then meet up some time later will find their watches both tell the same time. A very simple test which implies some kind of overall standard for how time "works" and that is experienced in the same way, rather than being some bizarr-o property of space.

[Brain Man]

Farsight, thank you for destroying one of your favorite arguments against time. We don't perceive magnetic fields. We infer their existence from observable effects. I tried seeing if I could perceive the magnetic field of a refrigerator magnet. I failed.

Oh that's pathetic, lpetrich. I've got some neodymium magnets. And let me tell you, there's no problem perceiving that magnetic field whatsoever. The repulsion is terrific, and you can feel that there's something there. You can feel the magnetic field. Now come on.

That's not quite the same thing as directly perceiving a magnetic field.

You can perceive a magnetic field directly to your neurons activity field. Thats the basis of the god helmet and trans cranial magnetic stimulation

You can see that space between your hands, and you can feel it when there isn't a space beween your hands. And when you waggle your hands you can see the motion of yours hands, and feel it.

We don't directly see motion. We more-or-less see a series of snapshots, which we interpret as motion.

Presume you are citing Crick and Koch. Their thalamocortical frame model of sensory perception, besides not resolving problems at the time (such as all the data on cortical dynamics) is out of date and has not been updated to integrate newer studies which show that sensory information is also sustained in situ short therm cortex memory till its required to be updated. Interestingly its cortical magnetic fields that are proposed as the mechanism. So sensory perception has a strong dynamic component from the cortex which can increase input sensitivity to accelerate the more even paced thalamic frame input tendency. This acceleration is only likely to increase when sensory demands are increased. i.e. More external activity is occuring.

So perception of motion is really motion dependent rather than time dependent.

[Brain Man]

If the new idea is supported by scientific evidence and the old one isn't, then the old idea is just a faith. I can show you space and motion with my hands. But you can't show me time flowing. And you can't show me any motion through time. It's that simple.

We have a built-in sense of time, and we have memory, which is time-related.

Memory is a product of motion coming through the senses that is consolidated when you are at rest. Your hippocampus which orders events into a linear narrative that is your experience of life over time, does so when you shut down or sleep. You dont even need the products of motion to be brain busting. Just pottering around, watching tv all day still puts in so much moving sensory information you have to sleep on it.

Even the moment to moment clocks such as the Suprachiasmatic nuclei or the regular low frequency brain waves are part of hippocampal functioning.

Interestingly all of the parts of the brain involved in sense of time are larger or more active in females, who tend to be in motion and action less than men, both mentally and physically. i.e. Female brains process less sensory information as males. Women are known to be more time sensitive. So time and the synchronization required to agree on it maybe a construct of femininity itself.

Nice wiki condensate...
So much easier than doing real science.


Oops more ellipsis.

Bit of a presumption there. Seems to to be a lot of wikipedia paranioa about lately. Thats from a paper i decided not to publish. You wont find any of that on wiki.

if you are going to accuse somebody of wiki'ng then at least check to see thats where they got their data.

[colubridae]

Yeah whatever...
Nice web condensate.

[Brain Man]

In summary its clear that what farsight says in regards to time being derived from motion is clearly upheld when looking at the mechanisms of perception. Not only does motion drive the input to the brain, but the output from the brain results in motion of some kind. (see abstract below)

You can find synchronization within the machinery of perception, i.e. The alpha waves of the thalamus which also give rise to some minor delta feedback from the thalamocortical loop. There is also the Gamma waves of the cortex, which assist in recurrent linking, but all this is primarily dependent on the external level of motion.

This information is derived from richard granger a high ranking neuroscientist who has used these analysis to provide image tracking intellligence for the military.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs ... 2904970690

[Brain Man]

Yeah whatever...
Nice web condensate.

You wont as i needed journal access (and several months of study, with reflection periods distilled over years) for the majority of it.

U can always prove me wrong and c if u can dig that stuff up yourself.

[colubridae]

Yeah whatever...
Nice web condensate.

You wont as i needed journal access (and several months of study, with reflection periods distilled over years) for the majority of it.

U can always prove me wrong and c if u can dig that stuff up yourself.

Good for you.
Nice web and online jourrnal condensate.

What's your degree? and from where? (Obviously do not answer if you are concerned about security) Just interested.

[FBM]

right i am not following this
can you start again

Imagine my surprise at finding a post here that I could understand.

[Brain Man]

Yeah whatever...
Nice web condensate.

You wont as i needed journal access (and several months of study, with reflection periods distilled over years) for the majority of it.

U can always prove me wrong and c if u can dig that stuff up yourself.

Good for you.
Nice web and online jourrnal condensate.

What's your degree? and from where? (Obviously do not answer if you are concerned about security) Just interested.

Cant say where, but at a major institution before their standards dropped to todays requirements, which increasingly resembles the old A levels. Computer science which included basic physics, but ended up getting employed in neuroscience with some minor retraining as the brain lends itself to computation and physics.

In reality attending uni, ended up being of little use in that very little of the information was able to be applied. what it does is force rigour, discipline, experience working in groups, respecting others resources, gives other people standards of reference etc.

Everything apart from the last point can be gained by an individual outside of academia if they are motivated and have some kind of guidance along the way.

[ChildInAZoo]

In summary its clear that what farsight says in regards to time being derived from motion is clearly upheld when looking at the mechanisms of perception. Not only does motion drive the input to the brain, but the output from the brain results in motion of some kind. (see abstract below)

You can find synchronization within the machinery of perception, i.e. The alpha waves of the thalamus which also give rise to some minor delta feedback from the thalamocortical loop. There is also the Gamma waves of the cortex, which assist in recurrent linking, but all this is primarily dependent on the external level of motion.

This information is derived from richard granger a high ranking neuroscientist who has used these analysis to provide image tracking intellligence for the military.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs ... 2904970690

Actually having access to the journal and looking at the article, I find it difficult to find anything here that supports Farsight. Does the brain use motion to operate? Yes. Do we organize all our descriptions of the brain and any other set of physical events by time? Yes, yes, yes.

The problem with Farsight's position on time is that there is no sign that we can use it to actually do the physics that we want. We wish to describe events. To do that we need to describe the distance between events. And when we describe distance, we want to compare the distance between one event at one time and one event at the same time or at a different time. We cannot avoid using time in our descriptions of distance. Until Farsight shows us even a simple example of describing a series of physical events without using time, his theory appears absolutely useless.

And since he's been working on this for years and undoubtedly someone has pointed this out before, we have evidence that it is actually impossible for Farsight to describe anything using his theory.