Time Explained

[Farsight]

Doublepost deleted.

[Farsight]

BTW can you answer the question? Why is the speed of light constant in any....

Frame of reference? Because you're subject to an "immersive scale change". You always measure the local speed of light in vacuo to be the same. As to why, see http://tf.nist.gov/cesium/fountain.htm to read about the NIST caesium fountain clock and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second for the definition of the second:

"Since 1967, the second has been defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero), and with appropriate corrections for gravitational time dilation."

In essence lasers and a microwave cavity are employed to cause hyperfine transitions, which are electron spin flips within caesium atoms. This emits microwaves of a given "frequency", which is measured by a detector.



I put the word frequency in italics above because frequency is measured in Hertz, which is defined as cycles per second. What the detector essentially does, is count incoming microwave peaks. When they get to 9,192,631,770, we say that's a second. Hence the frequency is 9,192,631,770 Hz by definition.

Note the mention of gravitational time dilation in the wiki article. If you were to take this clock and place it in a region of low gravitational potential, it would be like pressing a slow-motion button. All electromagnetic and other processes would then occur at a reduced rate, including the spin-flip and the motion of the microwaves towards the detector. However regardless of this, when the detectors get to 9,192,631,770, we'd still say that's a second.

It's important to realise that microwaves are electromagnetic radiation - light in the wider sense, and that in this situation, the light is moving slower and this is why the second is bigger. We then use this second... to measure the speed of light. That's why we always measure the local speed of light in vacuo to be 299,792,458 m/s. Note that provided you avoid the radial length contraction of general relativity, the metre is not affected. It's defined as the distance travelled by light in free space in 1⁄299,792,458th of a second, so the slower light and the bigger second cancel each other out.

[Farsight]

I held my hands up. But I couldn't see space in the gap. I did see the far side of my kitchen. I waggled my hands, Still didn't see space. Things came into view and then out of view again as I waggled my hands. I saw my hands change position – move. But I didn't see space. Just like you said you can't see time. Spot the similarity? Paraphrasing your words "I can't see time so it doesn't exist". By that logic space doesn't exist either!

Not so. You can see the space between your hands. You can see the gap between them. That's the space. You can see this and that motion. You can't see time flowing or any motion through time.

[colubridae]

I held my hands up. But I couldn't see space in the gap. I did see the far side of my kitchen. I waggled my hands, Still didn't see space. Things came into view and then out of view again as I waggled my hands. I saw my hands change position – move. But I didn't see space. Just like you said you can't see time. Spot the similarity? Paraphrasing your words "I can't see time so it doesn't exist". By that logic space doesn't exist either!

Not so. You can see the space between your hands. You can see the gap between them. That's the space. You can see this and that motion. You can't see time flowing or any motion through time.

We can play this game as long as you like.
You are wrong so there there there ya boo sucks.

My eyes measured a different angle between my hands…
You can make this stupid point if you want, but that’s all it is a stupid point.


I did not see space anymore than you did not see time.

I cannot see space in the same way that you cannot see time…
It doesn’t interact with photons, so how can I see it?

If you really want to you can take the theory and replace every occurrence of ‘time’ by ‘distance/velocity’.
Use the term distance-per-unit-velocity instead of time.
It will be the same theory, just turned into a laughing stock…

I say again ‘why have you not published in nature?’ If you are correct they will jump at your work.


What is your point in ‘publishing’ where you know you will receive ridicule. Do you have personality issues? Do you require regular doses of scorn?
I am sympathetic to peoples needs.

[Farsight]

LOL, that reminds me of the time I showed a Young Earth Creationist a fossil. "That's not a fossil", he said. "That's just a lump of rock". Then he started tapping his bible with a weird look in his eye. What a nutjob. Conviction is a hard nut to crack. Like Einstein said, "It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom". Carry on colubridae, carry on with your belief that you can see time but you can't see the space between your hands. Ah, I get it. Colubridae. You're a snake. No hands!

[Trolldor]

What does the Space between your hands look like?
Because it'd be amazing if you could see anything, you'd be the first human to view the world on the level of molecules, or even simply bacteria floating in the air.

[Farsight]

What does the Space between your hands look like?

A gap.

[colubridae]

LOL, that reminds me of the time I showed a Young Earth Creationist a fossil. "That's not a fossil", he said. "That's just a lump of rock". Then he started tapping his bible with a weird look in his eye. What a nutjob. Conviction is a hard nut to crack. Like Einstein said, "It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom". Carry on colubridae, carry on with your belief that you can see time but you can't see the space between your hands. Ah, I get it. Colubridae. You're a snake. No hands!

Carry on being disineguous....


You’re the one who claimed to be able to see space. But using the same rules as you used for ‘seeing’ space claimed you couldn’t ‘see’ time.

You also claimed to be able to ‘see’ gravity.????

I made no such crazy claims. You do remember these claims I hope.


You also still haven’t explained why you are selling your crazy here and not to a reputable publication likenature.

[Farsight]

I posted it in response to a question by dr357 on a thread that was being answered incorrectly. As for Nature, just give it... time.

[colubridae]

LOL, that reminds me of the time I showed a Young Earth Creationist a fossil. "That's not a fossil", he said. "That's just a lump of rock". Then he started tapping his bible with a weird look in his eye. What a nutjob. Conviction is a hard nut to crack. Like Einstein said, "It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom". Carry on colubridae, carry on with your belief that you can see time but you can't see the space between your hands. Ah, I get it. Colubridae. You're a snake. No hands!

WTF...

So if someone disagrees with you and you can't respond, you just call them a fundie...

I think you are wrong for various reasons.
Obliquely accusing me of being a creationist doesn't make your cock-a-mammy assertions correct.


I know a fossil when I see one, I have a fair collection, including some ace trace fossils.

Lest you forget It is your assertion "that time doesn't exist because you can't see it"
and that "space exists because you can see it"

I simply said if you can't see time then equally you can't see space....

This is your bollocks theory not mine.

[PsychoSerenity]

Farsight, I'm confused, you keep talking about motion as if it could exist without time. If there is no time, then everything is where it is and has a property of momentum or direction through space. But without time moving on, that momentum doesn't mean anything because nothing would move.

It seems to be the same logic as the question about a bee hitting a train. As the bee changes direction it must, for one tiny moment, be travelling at zero mph. Does that mean that the train at that moment is also travelling at zero mph? Well.. no.

Or maybe you are just a genius. Who knows?

[Farsight]

Farsight, I'm confused, you keep talking about motion as if it could exist without time. If there is no time, then everything is where it is and has a property of momentum or direction through space. But without time moving on, that momentum doesn't mean anything because nothing would move.

It's like I said to colubridae, you can hold your hands up a metre apart and you can see the gap, the space between them. Then you can waggle your hands and see them moving. You can see space and motion, they're empirical, they're there. Time isn't. You can't see time moving on, all you can see is things moving through space. Then you use some convenient form of motion to "measure time". In the old days we measured time with sundials, which relied on the motion of the earth. Then somebody invented water clocks, which relied on the motion of the water. Then came pendulum clocks, again relying on motion, then mechanical clocks, then quartz watches, then atomic clocks, and they all "clock up motion". If you had a magic button to stop time, what you're actually stopping is motion. It would be like the freeze-frame button on your Sky+ box.

It seems to be the same logic as the question about a bee hitting a train. As the bee changes direction it must, for one tiny moment, be travelling at zero mph. Does that mean that the train at that moment is also travelling at zero mph? Well.. no.

No. You can work that one out with a half inflated balloon representing the bee, with your finger being the train. The train doesn't stop at all. The front part of the balloon adopts the train's motion whilst the back part is still heading towards it. Switch back to the bee, and splat.

Or maybe you are just a genius. Who knows?

This stuff about time isn't anything new. Aristotle said this more than two thousand years ago, and in 1908 it was restated as PresentismIt's all very obvious once you focus on what's actually there rather than relying on concepts such as "time flows", which have no supporting evidence whatsoever.

[colubridae]

Er farsight I'm confused you keep saying the same things...

Is this your idea of argument....

As i told colubridae this as I told colubridae that....

Is this what counts in lah-lah land?

You still haven't explained what space looks like, since you claim to be able to see it?

[PsychoSerenity]

It's like I said to colubridae, you can hold your hands up a metre apart and you can see the gap, the space between them. Then you can waggle your hands and see them moving. You can see space and motion, they're empirical, they're there. Time isn't. You can't see time moving on, all you can see is things moving through space. Then you use some convenient form of motion to "measure time". In the old days we measured time with sundials, which relied on the motion of the earth. Then somebody invented water clocks, which relied on the motion of the water. Then came pendulum clocks, again relying on motion, then mechanical clocks, then quartz watches, then atomic clocks, and they all "clock up motion".

No, I see distance between my hands - and that can only be measured by comparing it to other distances. But I don't see motion without time. Without the memory of where my hands were, earlier on in time, I would have no reason to think they were moving.

If you had a magic button to stop time, what you're actually stopping is motion. It would be like the freeze-frame button on your Sky+ box.

So is what you're saying - this thing that everyone else calls time, you are going to call motion, therefore time doesn't exist?

Or are you saying that what exists is an infinite number of arrangements of matter in space and they are completely unconnected from each other - not in any sequence.

I think you need another analogy to explain this, without waggling hands.

[Farsight]

No, I see distance between my hands - and that can only be measured by comparing it to other distances.

But you can see it. Whatever you prefer to call it, it's there, and it's obvious.

But I don't see motion without time. Without the memory of where my hands were, earlier on in time, I would have no reason to think they were moving.

This is self-referential - you're using your current concept of time to support itself. Stand in a room and get the wife to throw a ball past you, and the motion attracts your eye. Again, it's there, and it's obvious.

So is what you're saying - this thing that everyone else calls time, you are going to call motion, therefore time doesn't exist?

Not at all, I said time exists like heat exists. It's just a change in priority. There's nothing unscientific about this, to appreciate it you just have to see what's actually there. When you measure time with a clock, what you're actually doing is "clocking up" motion through space. You can see space, and motion, but you can't see time.

Or are you saying that what exists is an infinite number of arrangements of matter in space and they are completely unconnected from each other - not in any sequence.

No, there is a sequence, but it's the result of motion. See what I said re entropy at http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... =0#p425277