Time Explained

[Twiglet]

How can time be a dimension and exist like heat exists? Is heat a dimension?

It interacts strongly with the drongo field during the production of pillock particles.

[ChildInAZoo]

Doubtless you will now dismiss this as quote-mining,

Wouldn't we say that it was abysmally bad quote-mining? I mean, the very next line in the book is, "From all of these considerations, space and time data have a physically real, and not a mere fictitious, significance; in particular this holds for all the relations in which co-ordinates and time enter..." Here Einstein is saying that time is physically real, not fictitious, and you say that time is fictitious, not physically real.

There are quite soon more direct refutations of your interpretation of Einstein. For example, when he writes, "There is no absolute (independent of the space of reference) relation in space, and no absolute relation in time between two events, but there is an absolute (independent of the space of reference) relation in space and time, as will appear in the sequel. The circumstance that there is no objective rational division of the four-dimensional continuum into a three-dimensional space and a one-dimensional time continuum indicates that the laws of nature will assume a form which is logically most satisfactory when expressed as laws in the four-dimensional space-time continuum. "

I suggest that you take the time to learn how to express laws in this manner.

[lpetrich]

But before that, turn back a page or so and read this:

(mined quote from Einstein on measuring time...)

That does NOT mean that time is caused by motion.

Consider how one measures space, with gradients, especially sharp ones. Does that mean that gradients exist but space doesn't?

Farsight and Brain Man, much of your argumentation fits Martin Gardner's pseudoscience criteria 2 and 3 suspiciously well...

Enough, lpetrich, Tackle the scientific evidence and the logical argument,

I have, and I found that your theories are totally unsupportable. Despite your discussion of Minkowski space-time, you fail to accept a central feature of it: space and time are interchangeable.

Also, Farsight, when you make arguments that are very similar to the arguments that many crackpots make, you won't look much different from a crackpot.

(more quote-mining snipped...)

[Farsight]

How can time be a dimension and exist like heat exists? Is heat a dimension?

No but temperature is a measure, and it used to be considered as a dimension because the word dimension used to means "a measure" rather than something that offers freedom of motion. You would know this if you'd actually read the OP. Once again, you have demonstrated that you haven't. LOL.

Middle English dimensioun, from Latin dimensio, dimension-, extent, from dimensus, past participle of dimetri, to measure out ....

[Farsight]

Wouldn't we say that it was abysmally bad quote-mining? I mean, the very next line in the book is, "From all of these considerations, space and time data have a physically real, and not a mere fictitious, significance; in particular this holds for all the relations in which co-ordinates and time enter..." Here Einstein is saying that time is physically real, not fictitious, and you say that time is fictitious, not physically real...

And how do you get from me saying "time exists" to me saying that time is fictitious? Aw, don't bother answering that, it's patently clear you're just making it up as you go along. Any old trash to try to spoil the thread.

[Farsight]

That does NOT mean that time is caused by motion.

Go and read A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein

Consider how one measures space, with gradients, especially sharp ones. Does that mean that gradients exist but space doesn't?

Not at all. Space exists. And a gradient in space is what a gravitational field is.

I have, and I found that your theories are totally unsupportable. Despite your discussion of Minkowski space-time, you fail to accept a central feature of it: space and time are interchangeable.

Garbage, you've demonstrated amply that you haven't even read my OPs. Now come on, go and read A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein. You'll read about what Einstein worked out in 1949. Or perhaps I should say that Godel worked it out. That space and motion are what's fundamental, not space and time.

Also, Farsight, when you make arguments that are very similar to the arguments that many crackpots make, you won't look much different from a crackpot.

Only I don't. Which makes you look like a quack trying to defend his turf.

[lpetrich]

That does NOT mean that time is caused by motion.

Go and read A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein

What's so special about that book?

I have, and I found that your theories are totally unsupportable. Despite your discussion of Minkowski space-time, you fail to accept a central feature of it: space and time are interchangeable.

Garbage, you've demonstrated amply that you haven't even read my OPs. Now come on, go and read A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein. You'll read about what Einstein worked out in 1949. Or perhaps I should say that Godel worked it out. That space and motion are what's fundamental, not space and time.

Which does not account for Lorentz transformations or the space-time metric.

Also, Farsight, when you make arguments that are very similar to the arguments that many crackpots make, you won't look much different from a crackpot.

Only I don't. Which makes you look like a quack trying to defend his turf.

Empty denial.

[Farsight]

Go and read A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein

What's so special about that book?

It tells you what Einstein thought about time in 1949. It's the same as what I've told you in the OP.

Which does not account for Lorentz transformations or the space-time metric.

Of course it does. Understanding time as an emergent property of from motion doesn't cause you to throw away t. But it does tell you why motion through space alters the measure of local motion that you call time, and why Lorentz transformation applies. And it reminds you that the metric is what you measure, not something that in itself is real.

[colubridae]

Understanding time as an emergent property of from motion doesn't cause you to throw away t. But it does tell you why motion through space alters the measure of local motion that you call time, and why Lorentz transformation applies. And it reminds you that the metric is what you measure, not something that in itself is real.

you still haven't dealt with the very first objection

using your maths you demonstrated that time was an 'emergent property of energy.'

using your maths I demonstrated that space was also an 'emergent property of energy'.

here it is again.
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 06#p423223

Use your maths to show that I am wrong, not words maths. If you cannot then say so.

[lpetrich]

Go and read A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein

What's so special about that book?

It tells you what Einstein thought about time in 1949. It's the same as what I've told you in the OP.

I'd be surprised if that is the case, given all the quote mining and misunderstanding you've done.

Which does not account for Lorentz transformations or the space-time metric.

Of course it does. Understanding time as an emergent property of from motion doesn't cause you to throw away t. But it does tell you why motion through space alters the measure of local motion that you call time, and why Lorentz transformation applies. And it reminds you that the metric is what you measure, not something that in itself is real.

I don't see how a Lorentz transformation can possibly work in your physics. Consider your repeated insistence of the fundamental dissimilarity between space and time in it.

Also, a metric does indicate some physical reality. That's the way that the equations work. Farsight, you've proposed yet another Gardnerian inversion here.

[Farsight]

Prepare to be surprised, lpetrich. The Lorentz transformation is unaffected by paying attention to scientific evidence, seeing that clocks clock up motion, and understanding at last that time doesn't flow and we don't move through it. And a metric is what you measure. "The metric" isn't reality, It's how you see reality, and what you see depends on your relative motion. Hence when you move towards a star you see it length-contracted, but you know that it's you that's changed, and thus your measurements, not the star. You know this because the star's appearance changes as soon as you move, and you know that instantaneous action-a-distance does not occur. It's all very simple stuff, and very strong. You really should try out the "made of light" concept to see how it fits with SR. It doesn't undermine it, it vindicates it. And it's even backed by the scientific evidence of pair production and annihilation. If you have a problem considering or accepting this, you really should ask yourself why you're exhibiting resistance, and why you cannot elucidate a reason to justify it.

[lpetrich]

Prepare to be surprised, lpetrich. The Lorentz transformation is unaffected by paying attention to scientific evidence, seeing that clocks clock up motion, and understanding at last that time doesn't flow and we don't move through it.

Farsight, you have just demonstrated how little understanding you have of it. It mixes space and time, not space and motion. Take space-time coordinates (x,y,z,t) and boost them in the x-direction to make new ones: (x',y',z',t'):

x' = (x + v*t)/sqrt(1-(v/c)2)
y' = y
z' = z
t' = (t + v*x/c2)/sqrt(1-(v/c)2)

(New space) = function of (old space) and (old time)
and
(New time) = function of (old space) and (old time)

Motion is nowhere in sight.

And a metric is what you measure. ...

Another Gardnerian inversion. For all your Einstein-thumping, you have remarkably little understanding of Einstein's theories.

[Farsight]

Farsight, you have just demonstrated how little understanding you have of it. It mixes space and time, not space and motion. Take space-time coordinates (x,y,z,t) and boost them in the x-direction to make new ones: (x',y',z',t'):

x' = (x + v*t)/sqrt(1-(v/c)2)
y' = y
z' = z
t' = (t + v*x/c2)/sqrt(1-(v/c)2)

(New space) = function of (old space) and (old time)
and
(New time) = function of (old space) and (old time)

Motion is nowhere in sight.

Clunk! That's my head hitting my desk. Now come on lpetrich, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_boost and pay careful attention to "It reflects the surprising fact that observers moving at different velocities may measure different distances, elapsed times, and even different orderings of events." You haven't made new space, you're just moving through it. And as a result, your measurements are different. And by the way, when you measure time, you still use a clock, and that clock uses motion. You might use a parallel-mirror light clock, and then if you thought about it, you'd understand why your motion affected your measurements. See Simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity.



See the right-angled triangle on the left? The diagonal is the light path, and we're using natural units wherein c=1. The base is your velocity as a fraction of c. The height √(1-v²/c²) or more simply √(1-v²) represents the Lorentz factor, with a reciprocal for time dilation as opposed to length contraction. Come on lpetrich, this is just Pythagoras' Theorem. It's kid's stuff. Wake up and smell the coffee instead of clinging to mysticism. And by the way, you've just demonstrated that you haven't even read the OP. Again. Clunk!

And a metric is what you measure. ...

Another Gardnerian inversion. For all your Einstein-thumping, you have remarkably little understanding of Einstein's theories.[/quote]It's not Gardnerian, and it's nothing to do with Einstein. The metric isn't reality. It's merely how you measure reality. The distance from here to Alpha Centauri doesn't reduce just because you move towards it at a significant fraction at c. Your measurement of distance changes when you move through space, but I'm sitting here on earth along with 7 billion other people, and the distance hasn't changed one jot. You might claim it has, but it hasn't. And when you exclaim excitedly on the radio that you've encountered new space and new time, we sigh and tell you about Pythagoras' Theorem.

[Farsight]

Understanding time as an emergent property of from motion doesn't cause you to throw away t. But it does tell you why motion through space alters the measure of local motion that you call time, and why Lorentz transformation applies. And it reminds you that the metric is what you measure, not something that in itself is real.

you still haven't dealt with the very first objection

using your maths you demonstrated that time was an 'emergent property of energy.'

using your maths I demonstrated that space was also an 'emergent property of energy'.

here it is again.
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 06#p423223

Use your maths to show that I am wrong, not words maths. If you cannot then say so.

Yes, I did deal with it. And I didn't demonstrate that time was an emergent property of motion with maths. I showed why you can't use maths, because you can't use maths to define the terms you use in that maths. I demonstrated it with observable scientific evidence, what you class as mere "words". Maths is no substitute for this. The buck stops with what's actually there and what's actually happening. Hence my response at http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 06#p423249:

"Hold your hands up, colubridae. See that gap between them? That's a space, and you can see it. Now waggle those hands. That's motion, and you can see that too. But can you see time? No. Spot the difference?"

It's that simple. Put your trust in the empirical scientific evidence you can see, not abstract things that you can't see like time flowing, and travelling through time, and time machines, and other such moonshine.

[ChildInAZoo]

Clunk! That's my head hitting my desk. Now come on lpetrich, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_boost and pay careful attention to "It reflects the surprising fact that observers moving at different velocities may measure different distances, elapsed times, and even different orderings of events."

That's the textual evidence that you don't understand relativity theory because you only read wikipedia and don't study physics. Popular science accounts get caught up in "observer" talk, but it really doesn't matter.

It's not Gardnerian, and it's nothing to do with Einstein. The metric isn't reality. It's merely how you measure reality. The distance from here to Alpha Centauri doesn't reduce just because you move towards it at a significant fraction at c. Your measurement of distance changes when you move through space, but I'm sitting here on earth along with 7 billion other people, and the distance hasn't changed one jot. You might claim it has, but it hasn't. And when you exclaim excitedly on the radio that you've encountered new space and new time, we sigh and tell you about Pythagoras' Theorem.

What is the distance between the Earth and Alpha Centauri? The "real" distance, not the one distorted by our motion.