LWSleeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 07:58 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;42009 wrote:
... and in a sense, it is not like the energy concept ... I can measure the potential energy of a rock on a mountain top ... and I can measure it again ... and then again ... can I do the same with time?


Of course you can, how do you think we know clocks are altered by gravity/acceleration?



paulhanke;42009 wrote:
... as well, energy can be converted into matter and matter can be converted into energy - so if energy is not a substance, does that imply that matter is not a substance? ... so if neither energy nor matter are substances, then what is?


To oversimplify what happens with energy-mass, you have an atom, say, and it is oscillating at a certain rate. It loses photons during spontaneous decay, and that lowers its oscillation rate. If the photons are reabsorbed, the oscillation rate returns, or if some other atom absorbs those photons, its oscillation rate increases. It is only by movement produced that we know "energy" was exchanged (and, with more massive objects, loss of weight). Energy is movement power, and what we can do is measure how much movement is caused elsewhere when matter decays. You can theoretically convert all of an atom to movement power, so we say energy and mass are equivalent.

BUT, energy is not treated as a substance, but rather only as a measurement of how much movement is caused when mass de-masses (AKA, work). We used to say all the movement and the mass in the universe add up. But that was before discovering that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing :whoa-dude: That required the addition of a new energy concept into the cosmological model, so-called "dark energy," to explain things.

As for your last question, does the universe lack substance, that is what some think (including me) who suggest everything is various concentrations of oscillation and the fields they produce. Yet it doesn't make sense that existence is foundation-less, so some of us are intrigued by the idea of substance or neutral monism. Here's a link to some articles on that in case you are unfamiliar with it: Advanced Search



paulhanke;42009 wrote:
... change? ... but what is change? ... heck - what allows change to even occur in the first place?


A different question altogether, but there is one little clue we have. What if that compressed state of things, the infinite density of a "singularity" that preceded the Big Bang, still was the case? In other words, no Big Bang and no expansion. One can image no change happening, so something that seems obvious is that change is tied to expansion. Personally I think HOW things change is more interesting than WHY they change.



paulhanke;42009 wrote:
... but the regularity of what? ... change? ... but does the rate of change of, say, a cycling cesium atom have anything at all to do with, say, the change in position of the earth as it circles the sun? ... as there is no causal link between these two processes of change, that does not seem like it could possibly be the case ... so then when we use the regularity of change of a cesium atom in order to increase the accuracy of our measurement and prediction of the change in the position of the earth as it circles the sun, we must be measuring something that is shared by both but independent of either ... and what is this entity that is shared by all changes but independent of any individual change - is it time?


It's a problem if you don't know your physics well enough to think about this carefully. One doesn't have to be an expert (I'm certainly not), but one does need a basic understanding of the main physical factors that determine how our physical universe works.

Regularity is all that clock makers are after. We make our clocks and calendars fit to daily and yearly cycles purely for predicting things like dawn and sunset, the seasons, etc. But a cesium atom's cycles are even more regular than the cycling of Earth's spin or its orbit of the Sun.

See, all we are trying to do is count regularly. We can say the cesium atom oscillated x number of times while the Earth turned or went around the Sun, and it's oscillation rate is so regular, we can confidently believe that x number of oscillations goes at the same rate every time (unlike orbits which are actually slowing down, or ordinary clocks which wear out). We can also say the hands went around the clock while all that goes on. It makes no difference to "time" how we count. (The exception to the regularity of the cesium atom is if you increase the gravity or acceleration of it's frame of reference. In that case, the cesium atom's oscillation rate slows down, and so measures everything as occurring more slowly compared to the former frame of reference.)

My point was that what we really counting, in the final analysis, is how many times something (anything!) will cycle before (on a personal level) our body falls apart, or (on a universal level) before all the organization in the universe has become disordered. Time is the measure of the rate of the universe's march toward disorder.
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 08:51 pm
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth wrote:
Of course you can, how do you think we know clocks are altered by gravity/acceleration?


... can you? ... I can measure the potential energy of that rock ... and then measure it again ... and again ... and it's always the same potential energy ... but if I measure five seconds ... and then measure five seconds again ... and again ... is it the same five seconds?

LWSleeth wrote:
As for your last question, does the universe lack substance, that is what some think (including me) who suggest everything is various concentrations of oscillation and the fields they produce. Yet it doesn't make sense that existence is foundation-less, so some of us are intrigued by the idea of substance or neutral monism. Here's a link to some articles on that in case you are unfamiliar with it: Advanced Search


... so if neutral monism denies the mental and the physical, does that mean it's a process metaphysics of sorts? ...

LWSleeth wrote:
My point was that what we really counting, in the final analysis, is how many times something (anything!) will cycle before (on a personal level) our body falls apart, or (on a universal level) before all the organization in the universe has become disordered. Time is the measure of the rate of the universe's march toward disorder.


... maybe I didn't ask the question clearly enough ... why should the regularity of something seemingly unrelated (like the oscillation of a cesium atom) have anything to do with the earth spinning around the sun (or even my body falling apart) ... unless there is some underlying connection between the two, it should not, should it? ... I mean, if there is no underlying connection, then it's like saying that measuring the mass of a baseball is going to tell me something about the distance from New York to London, isn't it? ... and time-as-measure does not seem to qualify as an underlying connection - if time is just a measurement and there is nothing else to link the two, then there should be no absolutely no correlation between cesium oscillations and earth orbits, should there? ...
LWSleeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 05:04 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;42270 wrote:
... can you? ... I can measure the potential energy of that rock ... and then measure it again ... and again ... and it's always the same potential energy ... but if I measure five seconds ... and then measure five seconds again ... and again ... is it the same five seconds?


But Paul, your analogy is wrong. The ONLY parallel between energy and time I made was that they are measuring concepts, not they measure the exact same way. There are many different ways to measure. Velocity is a measurement of speed and direction; weight is a measure of the vertical force exerted by a mass as a result of gravity.

Would you claim that velocity can't be a measurement because we perform it differently than we weigh things?


paulhanke;42270 wrote:
... so if neutral monism denies the mental and the physical, does that mean it's a process metaphysics of sorts?


Neutral monism doesn't DENY mental and physical, it simply says there is something more basic that is the essence of both (it denies that all existence is only one or the other). The idea is there is some sort of ground state substance that both consciousness and physicalness is made of and determined by.


paulhanke;42270 wrote:
maybe I didn't ask the question clearly enough ... why should the regularity of something seemingly unrelated (like the oscillation of a cesium atom) have anything to do with the earth spinning around the sun (or even my body falling apart)...if time is just a measurement and there is nothing else to link the two, then there should be no absolutely no correlation between cesium oscillations and earth orbits, should there?



Everything can't be understood by just throwing one's mind at the subject; sometimes we must stop and very, very carefully think about things. If you think about what I am going to say carefully, you will see there really is a relationship between the cesium atom and the Earth orbiting the Sun. What is it? They both CYCLE with a high degree of regularity. Let me try a simple example to explain.

I'm sure you've had a leaking faucet, and if so you know it can drip with quite a bit of regularity. Now, let's say I had no watch or clock, but wanted to know how long it took me to walk to the next town and back. To find out, I put a tape recorder next to my dripping faucet, and make the walk.

When I got back and counted the drips registered on my tape recorder there were about 10,000; of course, down the road my neighbor's clock minute hand went around about three times; the Earth spun around about 1/8 its diameter; the Earth moved around the Sun about 1/2900th its orbit; a cesium atom oscillated x trillion number of times.

The next time I want to walk to and from that town, does it matter if I say it takes 10000 drips, 1/8 of a turn of Earth, x trillion of cesium oscillation? NO, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, EXCEPT. . .

. . . except for which standard is most regular. My dripping faucet is not perfectly regular in its dripping, so 10,000 is far more an approximate count than the incredibly regular cesium atom oscillation. Therefore, I if I want the exact number of counts it takes to do the walk, the cesium atom gives me the best number to rely on for future predictions.

There is more to this, which I am willing to explain, but I hope you are willing to think this out to see why a relationship between Earth's spin and orbit, and a cesium atom, really can be established.

I have been saying that all a clock is, is a sort of "beat" kept while other things go on. However, there are some major "beats" going on in our life here on Earth that impact us deeply. Two of those "beats" are cycles: the spin of the Earth on its axis, and the Earth's revolution around the Sun. Our sleep-activity, for example, is tied to Earth's spin, farming and many other activities are tied to Earth's orbit around the Sun.

Now although any regular "beat" will give us numbers for timing, when we tune a clock to beat in rhythm with the Earth's spin and revolution around the Sun, it has great practical value to us because our clocks cycle in rhythm with Earth's spin and orbital cycles. Besides helping us plan for things, human biology seems very sensitive to life's rhythms and cycles.

The cesium atom oscillates so regularly, we can use its resonance frequency standard to keep a very, very, very true beat. While keeping everyday time is very important to us, you might imagine how important its extreme accuracy is to technologies requiring minute precision like GPS, radioastronomy, navigation transmitters, broadcasting, etc.

So, what is time? It the combination of two things. First, it is a beat kept while other things happen (and for practical purposes, we usually tune the beat to heavenly cycles); however, because the universe is entropic (becoming evermore disordered), that beat has special meaning to us because there are only so many more beats left before our own bodies join the rest of the universe's growing disorder.

Finally, we must remember that the "beat" of any situation will slow down if gravity or acceleration is increased, and since that also slows that situation's progression toward disorder, that is why we say "time" is relative. There is no "time" as a dimension or actual "thing," there is just change tied up in cycles that help us count and keep track of cycles.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 05:52 pm
@Khethil,
Forgive me for this short post.When we thing of TOE this equation will compress or , for lack of a better word, all other fundamental constants, into just one, mind boggling single beautiful equation

"But can a human mind ever reach this level of understanding"

If you think about it deeply that ONE EQUATION, this final equation of all reality will eliminate the need for a God

But I am much more comfortable with the concept of a loving personal God

President Roosevelt said so eloquently I think at the beginning of the second world war.

"You have nothing to fear but fear itself"

"Do not fear God lives"
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 06:04 pm
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth wrote:
Would you claim that velocity can't be a measurement because we perform it differently than we weigh things?


... 'twas merely pointing out that the analogy you were making was not perfect, and therefore open to question Smile

LWSleeth wrote:
Neutral monism doesn't DENY mental and physical, it simply says there is something more basic that is the essence of both (it denies that all existence is only one or the other). The idea is there is some sort of ground state substance that both consciousness and physicalness is made of and determined by.


... yeah, I found that out after reading further into the page Smile ... thanks for the link!

LWSleeth wrote:
Everything can't be understood by just throwing one's mind at the subject; sometimes we must stop and very, very carefully think about things.


... and here I thought I was! Wink ... anyhoo, take a look into the mathematics of stochastic processes ... two stochastic processes that are completely uncorrelated share nothing, whereas two stochastic processes that are correlated must have something in common ... for this "regularity" that you speak of to work - for the "regularity" of one process to be used reliably as a measure of another process - the processes must be correlated ... otherwise, you would be able to count the number of oscillations of a cesium atom during an Earth orbit and come up with ten bazillion, and then count the oscillations of the same cesium atom during a second Earth orbit and come up with two ... so what do the oscillations of a cesium atom have in common with the orbits of the Earth for you to be able to use one to measure the other? ... the substrate of time ... your "regularity" is just shorthand for "regularity in time" (just like you can have "regularity in space") ... and it is "regularity in time" that is used to accurately measure time (just like "regularity in space" is used to accurately measure space) ... and just like the substrate of space, the substrate of time has a geometry that is influenced by gravity ... oscillations do not arbitrarily speed up or slow down under the influence of gravity - the geometry of time itself is affected by such influences ...
LWSleeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 06:44 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;42514 wrote:
... and here I thought I was! Wink


I dunno, I have a feeling you are playing in the sandbox because . . .


paulhanke;42514 wrote:
...take a look into the mathematics of stochastic processes ... two stochastic processes that are completely uncorrelated share nothing, whereas two stochastic processes that are correlated must have something in common ... for this "regularity" that you speak of to work - for the "regularity" of one process to be used reliably as a measure of another process - the processes must be correlated


There is absolutely no parallel between timers and stochasctic processes! A timer need not have the slightest correlation to anything going on for you to make use of how many beats occurred on the timer while a thing or situation goes through changes. All we care about from a timer is that it gives us the same count every single instance it is used (i.e., regularity).


paulhanke;42514 wrote:
otherwise, you would be able to count the number of oscillations of a cesium atom during an Earth orbit and come up with ten bazillion, and then count the oscillations of the same cesium atom during a second Earth orbit and come up with two


??????? That makes no sense whatsoever. The entire point of using a cesium atom is precisely because nothing the Earth does (short of changing its gravity) will affect the cesium atom's regularity. No relationship is needed or wanted between the two other than we humans having access to both.


paulhanke;42514 wrote:
...so what do the oscillations of a cesium atom have in common with the orbits of the Earth for you to be able to use one to measure the other? ... the substrate of time ... your "regularity" is just shorthand for "regularity in time" (just like you can have "regularity in space") ... and it is "regularity in time" that is used to accurately measure time (just like "regularity in space" is used to accurately measure space) ... and just like the substrate of space, the substrate of time has a geometry that is influenced by gravity ... oscillations do not arbitrarily speed up or slow down under the influence of gravity - the geometry of time itself is affected by such influences ...


Geez, come on man, you aren't thinking. The oscillations are not supposed to have anything in common with Earth's orbit, AND one isn't measuring the other!!!! All timers, whether a metronome, clock, or cesium atom are nothing but beat keepers. Zillions of things are happening in the universe while a timer ticks, are you going to find correlation with it all? No, you can set your timer to tick at any rate you want. If you set your timer fast, it will give you 1000 ticks while boiling an egg, if you set it slow, it will tick 100 times . . . what difference does "correlation" make as long as you use the same standard next time you boil an egg?

HOWEVER, we actually do correlate our timers, not because we have to in order to make use of them, but because it has practical value. I am not going to repeat the rather extensive explanation I laid out for you in my last post because it doesn't seem like you read it (about tuning our clocks in harmony with Earth's cycles).
MJA
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 07:06 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
Forgive me for this short post.When we thing of TOE this equation will compress or , for lack of a better word, all other fundamental constants, into just one, mind boggling single beautiful equation

"But can a human mind ever reach this level of understanding"

If you think about it deeply that ONE EQUATION, this final equation of all reality will eliminate the need for a God

But I am much more comfortable with the concept of a loving personal God

President Roosevelt said so eloquently I think at the beginning of the second world war.

"You have nothing to fear but fear itself"

"Do not fear God lives"


The Equation is =

MJA
0 Replies
 
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 07:41 pm
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth wrote:
??????? That makes no sense whatsoever.


... my point exactly ... if there is no correlation, the "regularity" in a oscillating cesium atom has, by definition, "no relation" to the "regularity" of the orbiting Earth ... this is the logical consequence of time-as-measure ... it is only when you take the position of time-as-substrate (or time-as-correlator, if you will) that the "regularity" in an oscillating cesium atom and the "regularity" in the orbiting Earth can be counted upon to be consistent with respect to each other ...

LWSleeth wrote:
. . . what difference does "correlation" make as long as you use the same standard next time you boil an egg?


... it is the correlation that allows something to be used as a standard in the first place ... for example, an English yardstick and a Metric ruler measure lengths in different units - but these units can be consistently translated back and forth not because the English yardstick and the Metric ruler are both "regularities", but rather because both are "regularities in space" ... likewise, a cesium clock and some other frequency standard measure time in different units - but these units can be consistently translated back and forth ... not because the cesium clock and the frequency standard are both "regularities", but rather because both are "regularities in time" ...

LWSleeth wrote:
I am not going to repeat the rather extensive explanation I laid out for you in my last post because it doesn't seem like you read it


... I read it - it just seems to me to be lacking ... under the guise of "regularity" you are hand-waving away the fact that there must be a correlational substrate that allows the regularity of one thing to be used in any sense to measure an otherwise unrelated thing ... in the case of English yardsticks and Metric rulers, the correlational substrate is space ... and in the case of oscillating atoms and orbiting planets, the correlational substrate is time ...
LWSleeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 08:37 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;42537 wrote:
... my point exactly ... if there is no correlation, the "regularity" in a oscillating cesium atom has, by definition, "no relation" to the "regularity" of the orbiting Earth ... this is the logical consequence of time-as-measure ... it is only when you take the position of time-as-substrate (or time-as-correlator, if you will) that the "regularity" in an oscillating cesium atom and the "regularity" in the orbiting Earth can be counted upon to be consistent with respect to each other ...



... it is the correlation that allows something to be used as a standard in the first place ... for example, an English yardstick and a Metric ruler measure lengths in different units - but these units can be consistently translated back and forth not because the English yardstick and the Metric ruler are both "regularities", but rather because both are "regularities in space" ... likewise, a cesium clock and some other frequency standard measure time in different units - but these units can be consistently translated back and forth ... not because the cesium clock and the frequency standard are both "regularities", but rather because both are "regularities in time" ...



... I read it - it just seems to me to be lacking ... under the guise of "regularity" you are hand-waving away the fact that there must be a correlational substrate that allows the regularity of one thing to be used in any sense to measure an otherwise unrelated thing ... in the case of English yardsticks and Metric rulers, the correlational substrate is space ... and in the case of oscillating atoms and orbiting planets, the correlational substrate is time ...


You are reasoning from your brain, unrestrained by facts -- not from what experience tells us the way reality functions. That's okay with me if you want to do that, I just hoped you were a genuine thinker instead of that kind of debater who merely looks for ways to create doubt and controversy.

Clue. Notice I carefully answer each of your points, and from more than one direction; you, however, keep making the exact same argument over and over, bring in utterly irrelevant concepts to this discussion (like stochastic processes), and never logically refute what is wrong with my points. That is a sign you are merely trying to either keep a silly debate going (despite the fact that no authority would agree with your unsupported views on timers), or you are trying to "win." As for me, I was hoping for an intelligent, fact-based reasoning exercise aimed at the sincere search for truth. So I'm dropping out of this ridiculous debate.
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 09:01 pm
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth wrote:
(despite the fact that no authority would agree with your unsupported views on timers)


... yep - that Einstein ... what a loser, eh? ... I mean, c'mon - a geometry of spacetime?! ... what could he have been thinking?! ... I guess I'll go back to playing in my sandbox like a good little moron and dream the dream of mystical correspondences between unrelated things ...
LWSleeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 11:07 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;42550 wrote:
... yep - that Einstein ... what a loser, eh? ... I mean, c'mon - a geometry of spacetime?! ... what could he have been thinking?! ... I guess I'll go back to playing in my sandbox like a good little moron and dream the dream of mystical correspondences between unrelated things ...


Ok, sorry for losing my patience. But it is ironic you seem to think you are on the side of Einstein when I am the one reasoning from his point of view.

Also, I've not said one single thing against the idea of unseen correspondences between apparently unrelated things. In fact, I think there is an underlying "oneness" between all (some of my other posts refer people to the various concepts of monism).

My objection to your logic is not about that, but rather you trying to insist we must be constrained by relationships (or lack of) which have no relevance to time. You've been insisting some sort of correspondence is required between a timer and the changing aspect of reality we decide to time. You've not given a single bit of logic to justify that assertion, but just keep asserting correspondence over and over. When you did give a reason you cited stochasctic processes, which seem to me to solidly argue against your theory.

What am I supposed to think but that you are wingin' it -- saying creative things that pop in your mind, instead of carefully reasoning from facts (as philosophers today must do given how much we've discovered, and how readily Googling makes facts available to reason).
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 11:21 am
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth wrote:
Ok, sorry for losing my patience.


... wow ... unexpected ... thanks! Smile

LWSleeth wrote:
But it is ironic you seem to think you are on the side of Einstein when I am the one reasoning from his point of view.


... philosophy is full of such ironies ... different components of various theories taken in isolation and/or combination can have different philosophical consequences ... I think you are looking at this from the perspective of Einstein's equations, in which case it is possible to overlook his geometric-spacetime conceptualization that those equations are grounded in ...

LWSleeth wrote:
My objection to your logic is not about that, but rather you trying to insist we must be constrained by relationships (or lack of) which have no relevance to time. You've been insisting some sort of correspondence is required between a timer and the changing aspect of reality we decide to time. You've not given a single bit of logic to justify that assertion, but just keep asserting correspondence over and over.


... and my objection to your logic is analogical ... so let's reverse the analogy ... is it fair to say that since I can use "regularities" to measure lengths, planes, and volumes, that "space" is merely a measurement? ... that there is no such thing as "space", only "regularities"? ... that it is not the fact that all things exist "in space" that provides the ground that allows us to, say, use a ruler to measure an object and obtain the same result every time; but rather "regularities" just are and are in no way "regularities in X"? ... and so how fundamental are these "regularities" - are "regularities" the "underlying oneness between all"? ...
MJA
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 11:46 am
@paulhanke,
The flaw is measure.
Once your remove any uncertain measure from an equation, = is all that remains.
= is natures One certainty or truth.

=
MJA
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 11:57 am
@MJA,
MJA wrote:
The flaw is measure.
Once your remove any uncertain measure from an equation, = is all that remains.
= is natures One certainty or truth.

=
MJA


... sometimes I wish it were that easy Wink
MJA
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 12:08 pm
@paulhanke,
Equality is a truly great thing to wish for, for me too!

=
MJA:)
LWSleeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 12:35 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;42656 wrote:
I think you are looking at this from the perspective of Einstein's equations, in which case it is possible to overlook his geometric-spacetime conceptualization that those equations are grounded in ...


But do you understand that time had to be entered into equations because relativity predicted it would be affected by gravity/acceleration? If time weren't discovered to be affected, we'd still be saying "space," instead of "space-time."

So what exactly is affected? Time is a word we invented to describe something. What does it correspond to in reality? Well, it first corresponded to TIMERS, beat keepers, that kept a beat by moving the same throughout the day. We tuned the timer to daily cycles so we might predict when some part of the day would be upon us.

What happens in an increased gravity or accelerating frame of reference is that timers slow down. Okay, stop, think about this carefully because if you don't get this you will not understand what I say when I answer your next quote.

Why should clocks slow down in an accelerating frame of reference? Because gravity or acceleration acts as a constricting force that causes the atoms that make up the space ship (and its clocks) to tighten up and move more slowly. The accelerating space ship will actually shrink (and so will the rulers on board so that the ship will still measure exactly the same).

If you understand matter, then you know it is made up of oscillators (atoms). The life of an atom has only so many oscillations, so if you slow down its rate you also slow down matter's rate of decay or entropy.

Since all physical existence is dependent on how much matter holds together, timing beats based on the oscillations of atoms is really quite at the root of things.

So "time" isn't an actual dimension; it actually is a term that describes how fast or slow matter is becoming disordered. It's because the RATE of disorder is affected by the gravity or acceleration of a given situation that we say "time" is affected.

If you still don't see this, hang in there a bit longer and I'll try a couple of other ideas on you.


paulhanke;42656 wrote:
is it fair to say that since I can use "regularities" to measure lengths, planes, and volumes, that "space" is merely a measurement? ... that there is no such thing as "space", only "regularities"?


Here is where you make it clear you are confused about time and measurement standards. You have categorized time with space when really time is in the category of the ruler. Can you see time? No, just a clock (the "ruler"). Can you see space. YES!!!! Space is not a ruler, time is a ruler. Two completely different species of things.

You know, the time-space term, to be accurate, should really be "time-length/width/height. Putting time and space together is a misnomer if there ever was one. Even space is misnamed in a way (if we mean by that a void) because there seems to be no actual void. Besides background microwave radiation, what about hypothesized dark energy or Higgs field . . . and then, no matter where you go in space, put some mass there and gravity appears out of nowhere where it seemed formerly absent.

So "space" seems hardly a void (and of course the idea of some sort of underlying "stuff" or ground state substance, as neural monism proposes, is again getting some interest). Space therefore might come to mean simply where there is no mass (which doesn't mean there isn't still something there constituting the "fabric" of space). When there is no matter present, we can see space even if we can't see its "fabric."

But time, you can't see it. Why? Because it isn't a "fabric," it is a ruler, a measure method for tracking how fast or slow matter is heading toward disorder.


paulhanke;42656 wrote:
... that it is not the fact that all things exist "in space" that provides the ground that allows us to, say, use a ruler to measure an object and obtain the same result every time; but rather "regularities" just are and are in no way "regularities in X"? ... and so how fundamental are these "regularities" - are "regularities" the "underlying oneness between all"? ...


One thing you are saying is right on, and that is there is a huge mystery of why any sort of regularity should exist at all. For example, the Big Bang was an explosion, and order isn't something that normally comes from explosions. So what is behind the regularity of oscillation? Is it possible, for example, that what the BB exploded into wasn't a void at all, but rather possessed conditions which cause order?

Whatever the case, regularity in our universe is foundationally rooted in quantum oscillation; also, because gravity responds the same every time, it seems there are some background conditions which are ordered that is responsible gravity manifesting with regularity. The two major realms of order -- oscillating atoms/radiation in tandem with gravity -- form our galaxies, and galaxies are inhabited by stars and planets, which are masses of oscillating atoms that get hooked up by gravity in orbits; and orbits of oscillating masses entwined by gravity also exhibit the order of their oscillator-gravity parents by cycling regularly in orbit.

As you can see, there actually is a relationship between the regularity of atomic oscillation and Earth orbiting the Sun because all order in the universe is dependent on the two major or "foundational" ordering influences of creation: quantum oscillation and gravity.

So a "clock" that wants to record the most accurate regularity will find ways to synch with the two foundational ordering factors of the universe. :yinyang:
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 01:17 pm
@MJA,
MJA wrote:
Equality is a truly great thing to wish for, for me too!

=
MJA:)
One liners in big letters without realy meaning anything= MJA..:bigsmile:
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 02:41 pm
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth wrote:
Why should clocks slow down in an accelerating frame of reference? Because gravity or acceleration acts as a constricting force that causes the atoms that make up the space ship (and its clocks) to tighten up and move more slowly. The accelerating space ship will actually shrink (and so will the rulers on board so that the ship will still measure exactly the same).


... so, let me get this straight ... if I were to send a cesium clock off in space at 1G acceleration for a month and bring it back at 1G acceleration, the cesium clock that traveled at 1G acceleration when compared to a cesium clock that remained here on Earth will show ... no difference!!! ... why? ... because for that two month period both were exposed to a 1G acceleration - they were equally "tightened up" - equally "shrunk" ... yes?

LWSleeth wrote:
Here is where you make it clear you are confused about time and measurement standards. You have categorized time with space when really time is in the category of the ruler. Can you see time? No, just a clock (the "ruler"). Can you see space. YES!!!! Space is not a ruler, time is a ruler. Two completely different species of things.


... wait a minute ... I think you are privileging the sense of sight here ... not only do we sense time, both consciously and subconsciously (circadian rhythms, etc.), but also the way in which we sense space through sight is not by seeing space - but rather seeing things in space ... so, by your rationale, the fact that you can't see space means space is also just a ruler, yes? ...

LWSleeth wrote:
(and of course the idea of some sort of underlying "stuff" or ground state substance, as neural monism proposes, is again getting some interest)


... agreed - given the fact that each time physics finds a new "smallest" particle it then starts looking for and eventually finds an even smaller "smallest" particle, I'm not going to dismiss the possibility (probability?) that the different forms of mass-energy are manifestations of some sort of monistic "stuff" ... and given that what we have found thus far is a long line of dynamic organizations - i.e., processes - from mind, to life, to chemistry, to atoms, to electrons, and so on down the line, processes are what I'm putting my money on Wink

LWSleeth wrote:
One thing you are saying is right on, and that is there is a huge mystery of why any sort of regularity should exist at all.


... excellent point ... we have lots of descriptions of things like regularity and symmetry and symmetry breaking and so on, but no real reasons for why such things should appear over and over in this universe! ...

LWSleeth wrote:
two major or "foundational" ordering influences of creation: quantum oscillation and gravity.


... actually, I might add a third item to that list of ordering influences of creation: disequilibrium ... galaxies and stars are in the sky today because of the minutest disequilibrium of energy after the Big Bang ... living things thrive in a self-maintained process of disequilibrium ... if it weren't for disequilibrium, all the quantum oscillations and gravity in the universe would not have created a thing ...
LWSleeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 04:59 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke wrote:
... so, let me get this straight ... if I were to send a cesium clock off in space at 1G acceleration for a month and bring it back at 1G acceleration, the cesium clock that traveled at 1G acceleration when compared to a cesium clock that remained here on Earth will show ... no difference!!! ... why? ... because for that two month period both were exposed to a 1G acceleration - they were equally "tightened up" - equally "shrunk" ... yes?


Well, yes, sort of (though I didn't say anything about that). To be accurate, you wouldn't be able to escape Earth's gravity with 1G acceleration, but barring that, if you maintain 1G your spaceboard clocks will register "ticks" at the same pace as Earth clocks (generally, that is; even on Earth clocks move at different rates, slightly slower at the equator than the poles, for example).

If you were to move to the moon, your clock would tick faster than clocks on Earth because of differences in gravity.


paulhanke wrote:
... wait a minute ... I think you are privileging the sense of sight here ... not only do we sense time, both consciously and subconsciously (circadian rhythms, etc.), but also the way in which we sense space through sight is not by seeing space - but rather seeing things in space ... so, by your rationale, the fact that you can't see space means space is also just a ruler, yes? ...


Yes you sense "time" (and actually see it too) but what you sense and see is physical situations changing.

Try this thought experiment. What if absolutely everything in the universe stopped changing right now. No stars move, no seasons change, no clocks hands rotate, no one ages, no one is born, no radiation moves through space, heat stops right where it is . . . all utterly still. Is time passing?

See, your "sense" is the more or less subconscious awareness you've had from birth of all the movement around you, all the change. But there's more to it than just change because the kind of change you subconsciously observe is change that results, overall, in disorder. You get older, your toys wear out, pets and people around you die . . .

If fact, it is that constant loss and change toward our own death that cements the "sense" of time rather dramatically in people's mind. We say so much time has passed, but really so much disordering change has occurred; we say we have we have lived some amount of time, but really our body has had some number of disordering events happen; we say a year went by, but really the universe itself used up some of the order it still has left in it.

So yes, you have a sense alright, but not of some "dimension" or force that is real time.


paulhanke wrote:
if it weren't for disequilibrium, all the quantum oscillations and gravity in the universe would not have created a thing ...


While that is true, I don't see how disequilibrium is something that can be included as a source of order (along with quantum oscillation and gravity). IMO, that disequilibrium is attributable to universal expansion, so it seems more accurate to say it is a source of space.
Bracewell
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 05:44 pm
@Khethil,
A small point - If you are already in orbit then surely a 1 g acceleration would very quickly result in a speed greater than the escape velocity for the planet. The mind boggles at the thought of 1 g maintained for two months - any guesses at what it might be?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Nature of Time
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/21/2021 at 06:15:46