TIME EXPLAINED (v2.1)

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by phoenixbyrd

Yet you would have me believe that your not just mashing up all three in some twisted ill concieved garbage?
...
And making crap up just completly loses all crediblitiy for yourself. Yea, it may seem that I have an attitude, but you know what, I'm not one that keeps quiet when I see obvious garbage. If you don't want to bother learning about the things your trying to talk about then don't be so alarmed when someone pops up and says your wrong. Did you get pissed off at your teacher when he/she said you were wrong on a test? Is that something you normally do? Do you argue with people that eleventeen is a real number?
...
Damnit ... can't think of the name of the song, but it is soooo your theme song!

Honestly, PB, that's got to be one of the strongest counter arguments I've ever read. You not only managed to express the real truth, but also had keen enough vision to pinpoint the exact areas of fault in the idea expressed. None of this emotional and interpretive nonsense, just pure unadulterated fact and evidence. I like it. Physics and mathematics is clearly all about how much you know and others don't. With a sharp wit such as yours, you should teach all of us numbskulls here on our forums, thus increasing the greatness which is we.

[arkain101]

No harmful intentions or anything Phoenyx, but that post was funny!

If there is something sincere and informed you have to back up your 'intelligent arguments' I would be excited to hear it.

I am not here to say who is right and who is wrong. Rather what is right and what is wrong. I bring forth ideas, support it with logical examples and mathmatics when I can. I do so to hear opinions for those interested to respond. Whether or not that idea survives with me is dependent on what is there to argue it.

Yes I choose to write in ways such as; "If this is so, wouldnt such and such be correct?" instead of directly asking a question. Maybe that isnt the best method, but it kills more birds in one stone.

[hardkraft]

Originally Posted by phoenixbyrd

So umm yea... Two people that are chatting with each other in china right now isn't really happening because it isn't happening/interacting in my frame of observation?

So tell me who is talking in China right this second. Name names. I am pretty sure you don't know you just assume that somebody must be. The point is that the frame is so far removed from yours that you have no way of knowing. Even if you had a live feed from there it still would be delayed enough that you could only make guesses of who is acctually talking right this second. Another point is that it doesn't really matter. Even if they were speaking about their plans to kill you (which they probably would if they heard you talk ) they are far enough that it doesn't really affect you. You can assume all you want either way. It doesn't matter. I could say that most everybody is sleeping now and there is a rare moment inbetween words and you can't prove me wrong.

Now let's go back to physics. Let's say the sun was anihilated in an instant by some antimater monster. Now let's take Mars so you don't get confused with people, light and such. There are no people on Mars and as far as we know there is nobody to observe the sudden destruction of the sun. Those frames of refference are so removed that it doesn't make any difference anyway. Mars keeps rotating around non existen sun for many minutes to come. And you can screem all you want 'gawd, Mars, get with the program, sun is no more!' it doesn't matter to Mars one bit. Mars doesn't use your common sence and keeps on circling.

This is pretty elementary stuff. I would assume that somebody that heard of Heisenberg would know this. It just shows you the dangers of relying too much on common sense.

[Farsight]

Originally Posted by Ernie

Hi popular, thank you very much for sharing you interesting thoughts about the nature of time... Could you please try again/with other words to explain why - from your point of view - time slows down when travelling on high speed. When you have a certain interval (some sort of metronome), why does it tick slower when you are moving with a speed near c?

Sorry to be slow getting back to you Ernie, I've been on holiday, and only got back late last night. Here you go: time measures change, or motion, within some system, be it an electron, an atom, or some collection of atoms such as a brain, a body, a clock, or a rocketship. All these things can be thought of as being made up of photons whizzing around in circles, or whizzing around between the circles. If you jump into a rocketship and zoom off at .99c, all this whizzing around has to cover much greater distances than it did previously, so it takes longer to happen. It doesn't happen as fast as it did. Things still change, but not as fast as they did, and time is the measure of the change, so "time slows down". You can find out more about this if you read up on Special Relativity. Note that time also slows down in a high-gravity situation, which is General Relativity.

PhoenixBird: If you're reading this, sorry to see you got banned. I guess you were a little acerbic. Oddly enough, I've been having thoughts about space and light, wherein space is nothing without it, and matter is in essence "made out of light". This does rather mean distances don't exist if there's no light, no how, no where. I take some pride in being an ontological sort of guy, and whilst "no light = no distance" sounds rather odd, please trust me that it isn't quite as ridiculous or as philosophical as it might seem.

[phoenixbyrd]

Actually, it is immensly ridiculous popular. I enjoyed your article on time, but please don't fall for what these two guys are saying. Nothing is made out of light except well ... light of course.

Hardkraft,

Your example makes no sense ... What are you trying to prove here? It doesn't matter if mars observes the sun going boom or not, the sun still went boom and the sun's explosion will still reach mars and all amazingly without mars observing it, without the boom being part of mar's "frame of observation". Reality doesn't care who or what the hell is observing, the sun still explodes.

No, I can't prove WHO is talking to each other in china, but that doesn't negate that people DO live there, that the country DOES exist, and that people are up right now having a nice little chat with each other. That's logic and common sense. It doesn't matter if I myself am there to observe this country with these people talking, THEY STILL EXIST.

[hardkraft]

And that's precisely the point: it doesn't matter. You can keep speculating about what happens in the other frame but who cares if it doesn't matter. If something doesn't matter , I could be saying just the opposite of what you are saying and I would be as right. Well, not in this universe of course because eventually that frame will catch up with us and then we can see who was right and who was wrong.

That's why arkain proposed a thought experiment with a universe with no medium such as light to carry the information. Then it trully wouldn't matter. Those frames would be permanently separated and there would be no way to get any inforamtion about each other.

Take the opposite example. Mars is flowting in an empty space and an object the size of the sun appears some milions of miles away. Since there is no light and presumably no gravity which supposedly travels at the speed of light that event would never reach mars and it would keep flowting as if nothing happened. So what if that sun exists. Nobody knows or can know about it. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter to people and to Mars.
The frames wouldn't even need to be separated by a huge distance. Atoms sitting right next to one another would not know or feel each other's presence unless two actual electrons or protons would acclually touch, I suppose. Therefore the distance disappears.

[phoenixbyrd]

lmao, the distance between them does not disappear. Light from another star not reaching mars due to the distance and ammount of 'time' it would take to travel to mars does not change that there still exists a certain distance between the two objects.

Things need not observe other things in order for those things to exist, they don't need any interaction of any kind. An atom 50 billion light years away will still exist of it's own accord without interacting with you or any object in this universe. What has been posted is not a thought experiment, it's a twisted messed up version of the observers effect (with a couple other theories thrown in for good ol fun). Plain and simple. One that is woefully wrong and easily understood if one takes the time to learn about the theory and what it DOES apply to.

The point is, with or without light and with or without observation, thing's still exist and thing's are still seperated by each other through varying degrees of distance. It doesn't matter if you can measure the distance or object, it doesn't matter that you guys go on about frames of observation, all that matters is that things still exist and are still seperated by distance regardless of any ill concieved notions you may have regarding really simple concepts and theories if you took the time to learn them.

Atoms sitting right next to one another would not know or feel each other's presence unless two actual electrons or protons would acclually touch, I suppose. Therefore the distance disappears.

Explain, HOW does the distance magically disappear between the two atoms? Think really hard.

here's a diagram

(Atom 1) --> o ----distance---- o <--- (Atom two). Both aren't observing each other nor interacting with one another. How is distance magically disappearing? Hell, for good measure, let's say the two atoms are 100nm away from one another and disregard any forces that would come into play. Go ahead, explain away.

[arkain101]

The point is, with or without light and with or without observation, thing's still exist and thing's are still seperated by each other through varying degrees of distance. It doesn't matter if you can measure the distance or object, it doesn't matter that you guys go on about frames of observation, all that matters is that things still exist and are still seperated by distance regardless of any ill concieved notions you may have regarding really simple concepts and theories if you took the time to learn them.

So far phoenixbyrd I agree with what you have said, and it does not differ with what I was getting at.

I agree that just because you can not observe something happen does not change the fact whether it exists or not. Using your examples, china exists, and there is people in it, even with me dead, sure of course, I agree.

But I think why we differ where we do is because you are not understanding the point I have tried to get across.

you can know alot of things happen and exist, but knowing and trying to observe are not the same thing, which of course I think we both understand.

But that is where my point is based from.

Because of the fact you can only measure what is observeable, and the only thing that is observeable is information that has reached your frame, -in a strictly scientific manner-, the only thing that exists in respect to measurement is that exactly that; -that which is zero distance away from your measurement frame-. As you extend distance, you are assuming a future, and the further out into the future you assume, the less certain of a measurement you can make that is occuring at the source of what you are observing.

Quite literally yes, distance is a seperation of time the same as it is space. Respectfully this has been titled space-time. One of the same thing.

Now when you consider this a reality even here at our macro scale, you see it is obvious there will be difficulty finding certainty in the so called 'quantum world'. A high velocity world, events happening with in a seperation of space-time.

I am not well educated on exactly what heisenbergs uncertainty principle is about in detail. I have read there is various descriptions?. However, if what I have said is related it was not on purpose.

With this considered, even though our world appears certain, it is infact just a incredibly high probability of certainty, but that is also because you have to consider all mind made observations are on a very slow frequency, in the range of 60hertz, things that happen too much faster than that are not technically existent to our minds. Yet, of course a machine can measure much more accurately, at different levels of scale, it too is operative on a frequency, and it too will not be able find 100% certainty in any measurement.

With this considered, even though our world appears certain, it is infact just a incredibly high probability of certainty

But furthermore, there is no such thing as world, or a country, or a person, etc etc, inrespect to the universe source.

Everything we know and see in our mind, is a creation of perception made by information. It isnt really there, we just create it to be there.

So for example; if what I say is true, what about the sun? Its not a big burning ball of fire? No.. it is a mass-energy-space-time that is in a sense experiencing slower time relative to other units of space-time like earth.

Our minds give it size, but in respect to an atom (in classical illustration) the sun is not there, it is just a higher collection of atoms compared to surrounding space-time.

See where I am going? in respect to an electron the sun isn there, its just a place where it attains higher energy states than other places.

And that is the topic of discussion, measurments made with the restriction of or obidience to the laws of physics.

[hardkraft]

I am not sure if you understand the part where we talk about a world without light. It's not a world that's dark but a world where light doesn't exist and there is nothing else that travels at light speed instead either.
In current universe light detemines the size of the event horizon. We can make theories about what's beyond that but they wouldn't be even theories because there is no way to ever check if they are true. It's more like guesses. And even though we can all agree that there is something out there it's pretty much useless to talk about it since we will never know.
In a universe without light the event horizon would collapse to zero. So even though you could speculate (to yourself) about other event horizons out there it doesn't matter. Also it's not just you that's ignorant about the outside world. There is no other being that can see all these event horizons being so close and yet unable to communicate with each other. Everybody is in the same boat. And when I say "speculate" it seems like it implies a thinking being but a single atom would be in the same situation and an electron would not repel from an electron because it wouldn't know that something was there. If "there" is undetectable there is no there.

[arkain101]

Right.

In a sense put yourself in a photons reference frame, and you are in the universe example of no light.

You cant see light because you are light, and a photon does not have its own miniature photons to communicate to.

As such space and time do not exist and you are free from restriction, just as light is observed to be. In a sense a photon closes up space-time, and becomes a closed off individual unit of space and time. Where as mass is an opened up exposed space-time flucuation.