Time Explained

[ChildInAZoo]

The 'qualitative' accounts supplied by Farsight add up to precisely 0. Conceptual routes were dropped by science about 400 years ago. Current models are under test...

Conceptual routes were not dropped. Einstein arguably advanced physics through a conceptual route. However, this advance is exactly what Farsight seems to reject: that there is no physical use of time and space separate from each other. Farsight seems to have the most important element of Einstein dead wrong. I can only say, "seems to have" because Farsight is dogged in dodging direct questions and appearing to believe almost anything. However, newolder, you are correct that no physicist hoping to advance a theory hopes to justify it on purely conceptual grounds--it is only through success in matching a theory to the details of observations that physics advances, even the conceptual advances of Einstein. In his gravity thread, Farsight seems to have also abandoned the way that general relativity matches the details of observations. I suppose we shall see if he answers direct questions in that thread or continues his pattern of evasions.

[ChildInAZoo]

I said the electron is literally made from light, and the scientific evidence for that is pair production.

This is something that one can use mathematics to test. Do you care to show us how light is made into an electron? I would be particularly interested to see how such a creation could have charge. This claims of yours is something that is prima facie impossible. Surely you have not only your own calculations but scores of scientific papers and books that directly support this claim, right?

[ChildInAZoo]

It's just a 'what-if?'. What-ifs are perfectly legitimate in science, we'd be lost without them. In any case, the scenario is not ruled out by the theory, it's ruled out by the real-life limit of c. The theory then rules it out because of that limit. So it's circular really, I'm saying 'what if L2 existed, that wasn't limited by c?' and you're effectively saying 'it's impossible because c is the limit'.
So you're effectively saying 'don't ask what-if?'.

No, I am saying do not reject that relativity theory accurately reflects reality because of a science fiction scenario that contradicts our best theory. Should I say that geology doesn't reflect the REAL EARTH because it might be that there are unicorns digging underground and laying down layers of rock that will eventually turn into candy?

[ChildInAZoo]

whether they are accurate can be sorted out later on, he provides such an easy conceptual route into a broad range of physics that usually takes years for each aspect..im not bothered to think some "time" needs to be put aside later to check it out.

This is very disturbing, since from my understanding of physics, very little of what Farsight writes makes any sense. It isn't even correct to say that much of it is inaccurate, since it is literally senseless.

[Brain Man]

whether they are accurate can be sorted out later on, he provides such an easy conceptual route into a broad range of physics that usually takes years for each aspect..im not bothered to think some "time" needs to be put aside later to check it out.

This is very disturbing, since from my understanding of physics, very little of what Farsight writes makes any sense. It isn't even correct to say that much of it is inaccurate, since it is literally senseless.

Youre peeved because hes making statements that dont fit with your more advanced level...For a beginner there simply isn't an easier to grasp introduction to all the main facets of quantum physics, which farsight manages to provide. He is also so clear that its obvious where he is making theoretical statements of his own. i.e. Subatomic knots, light from electrons, relegation of time etc. So these can be taken as something to be looked at on their own merit or not as the case may be.

So with farsights introductions in one hand, a couple of uni texts and google, you have a very easy route introduction to physics, that has been really useful to me. I have prinouts of his essays for easy reference.

Where for example is electromagnetism explained so well in terms of spin ? You really have to dig round the corners of the textbooks for that nugget. What hes done is take the basic concepts and magnify them sufficiently so you can grasp simple concepts as a precursor to stepping onto the harder stuff elsewhere.

[colubridae]

It exists as it exists. Do you think that the concept of past or future orientation exist outside of our consciousness? If your answer is "yes," just how do those things exist?

Will you soon say that in the past?

[Brain Man]

Brain Man, Yes, if you are recalling the past or contemplating the future, you are still doing it from present time. At this moment you are physically present somewhere on the planet, and you are perceiving whatever you are perceiving. Our capacity to perceive includes the ability to remember the past and make plans for the future, but, physically, we still are at here and now and space and time.

How do you actually prove that you were here now at all? First of all, I believe you used the wrong tense. "Were" is about the past. Can you prove that you are "here" now? To paraphrase Descartes, "if you think you are, you are." If it's not your mind/brain/consciousness that's doing the perceiving for you, who or what is doing it? Anybody who has a problem knowing that they exist, must already exist to be having that problem.

You write "Your mind can't be fully conscious processing what is happening now..." Excuse me, but can you define or explain what "fully conscious" means? Is there a way that you can know that you are "fully conscious?" Do you have to be "fully conscious" to know how conscious you are?

Consciousness definitions as you know are fraught with problems, which is why it is barely a science, and so attracts philosophers who want to talk about their inner selves all day rather then solve any particular problem.

You can only really talk of consciousness in terms of sensory awareness of your surroundings, brainstem ability to react to stimulus (attention), social aspects such as theory of mind of others..then there are the internal processes some of which i mentioned involving recall of stored information along a linear representation of time in your hippocampus and these call into play imagination parts of the brain etc. Some experts like Victor Lamme talk about recurrent loops, but it doesnt help, as these occur all over the brain, from small to large regions.

SO broadly you should think of consciousness in several main categories.

1. Now processing what is coming in the senses
2. Internal processing involving memory storage and recall
3. Automatic processes, where it can be argued you are conscious at all.


Thats why it is possible to talk about now processing as present orientation. Its only when you are here now, that you can synchronize to the mind of others and have a shared sense of time. Thats all time is according to the experts. Shared synchronicity to common reference points. You have to be taking in sensory information to do that. Try some drugs which shut down sensory perceptions, ketamine, LSD and see what happens ...you can easily lose your sense of time for up to several days...as you really aren't processing incoming sensory data.

Also if you are just processing the present and have no past recall and encoding of future plans its hard for a human to put themselves into any kind of motion and alter time itself. you can barely survive, never mind build a plane or devise any other means to alter your motion such that you can disrupt the common reference of time you are sharing with others.

[newolder]

Conceptual routes were not dropped .

My mistake. I should have written 'conceptual only' because the scientific method includes methods to dissuade 1 from adopting ideas that contradict repeated experiment.
The idea that heavy things fall faster was literally dropped near the time when the scientific method took root in Europe.

Einstein arguably advanced physics through a conceptual route.

The idea of a limit to the rate of information transfer stands the test of all observation hitherto. General Relativity theory is not 'conceptual only' - it's predictions are available to empirical test.

However, this advance is exactly what Farsight seems to reject: that there is no physical use of time and space separate from each other. 

Farsight writes that time is motion and that mass is inertia. Einstein writes that motion is relative and mass over there affects inertia over here.

Farsight seems to have the most important element of Einstein dead wrong.

The cosmological constant is very fine.

g. However, newolder, you are correct that no physicist hoping to advance a theory hopes to justify it on purely conceptual grounds--it is only through success in matching a theory to the details of observations that physics advances, even the conceptual advances of Einstein.

Okay.

 In his gravity thread, Farsight seems to have also abandoned the way that general relativity matches the details of observations. I suppose we shall see if he answers direct questions in that thread or continues his pattern of evasions.

Farsight haz a gravity thread?

[LaMont Cranston]

colubridae, No, it's impossible to say "that" or anything else in the past. The past has already happened. It is possible to say "that" in the future," if, for some reason, you want to do that. Your conception of "that" which happened in the past in happening now; so is your conception of "that" which might happen in the future.

[colubridae]

You guys are missing a vital component...

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

strange painting.jpg (54.12 KiB) Viewed 952 times

[mistermack]

No, I am saying do not reject that relativity theory accurately reflects reality because of a science fiction scenario that contradicts our best theory. Should I say that geology doesn't reflect the REAL EARTH because it might be that there are unicorns digging underground and laying down layers of rock that will eventually turn into candy?

I think we're well off the subject there. I'm looking for meaningful argument about the physics. I would happily change my tack in a second, if given good reason, because that would mean I was that much closer to the truth. But it's just the physics of it that interests me.
Calling a 'what-if' science fiction doesn't make it so. Scientists use false 'what-if's all the time, they then run a proof that it is false, and prove their point by elimination. Nobody calls it science fiction, it's a useful technique.
I don't accept that the scenario contradicts relativity anyway. I'm just argueing that there is also reality.
Relative to the light landing on it, my clock is stopped. But I know it hasn't.
.

[colubridae]

No, I am saying do not reject that relativity theory accurately reflects reality because of a science fiction scenario that contradicts our best theory. Should I say that geology doesn't reflect the REAL EARTH because it might be that there are unicorns digging underground and laying down layers of rock that will eventually turn into candy?

I think we're well off the subject there. I'm looking for meaningful argument about the physics. I would happily change my tack in a second, if given good reason, because that would mean I was that much closer to the truth. But it's just the physics of it that interests me.
Calling a 'what-if' science fiction doesn't make it so. Scientists use false 'what-if's all the time, they then run a proof that it is false, and prove their point by elimination. Nobody calls it science fiction, it's a useful technique.
I don't accept that the scenario contradicts relativity anyway. I'm just argueing that there is also reality.
Relative to the light landing on it, my clock is stopped. But I know it hasn't.
.

Oops mistermack let me just correct your blatant error in that.

Nobody proves anything in science. Ever. Period.
And it's not just a figure of speech.
All you can ever do is find supporting evidence... or falsify.

Science 101


Ask any real scientist. They will tell you that straightaway.

ps the painting is important for your quest (better give you a clue: rene magritte)

[mistermack]

Yeh, I was thinking of maths I spose. But maths is science, isn't it? It's all one to me. You'll find plenty of nits to pick with me around. I'm only interested in the main point I'm discussing.
.

[colubridae]

Yeh, I was thinking of maths I spose. But maths is science, isn't it? It's all one to me.
.

Oops sorry I thought you were a scientist...

Enjoy the painting...

[mistermack]

Oops sorry I thought you were a scientist...

Now THAT's what I call science fiction!!!