0
   

Time is it moving slower than it was in the young universe?

 
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Oct, 2009 08:26 pm
@validity,
validity;100395 wrote:
That statement is not in accord with GR. Time moves slower only when compared between varying gravitational potentials. Yes the universe was more dense in the past, but the entire universe was more dense. There was no varying regions of gravitational potential.


In the huge gravity of the early universe time must have flowed slower RELATIVE to the almost infinitely less compacted universe of present time
validity
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 01:53 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;100423 wrote:
In the huge gravity of the early universe time must have flowed slower RELATIVE to the almost infinitely less compacted universe of present time
With this in mind the paradox posed in the opening post

Alan McDougall;90682 wrote:
My point is; time moves slower in colossal gravity fields, how did our universe overcome this apparent paradox in its creation?, because physics tells us in an infinite gravity field like, the singularity, time must have stood still; but it did not luckily for us


is resolved. If you are still not convinced, I ask you is time passing slowly now? The density of the universe now is much larger than it will be in 1 trillion years. If the opening post is valid, then we should be experiencing a slower rate of time. But we are not. Time passes normally for us from our point of view just as time passed normally for the early universe from the early universes point of view.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Oct, 2009 04:01 am
@validity,
Time in my opinion is speeding up a year with a now clock might be a billion years of the primordial clock

TIME----------------------------------------------------------------Time

O--------year-------------O---year---O-year-O.year.O/TIME STOPS Big bang?

Thus "one billion present years" could equal "one year" on the primordial clocks and calenders. Or clocks are thus revolving a billion time faster that the BIG BANG clocks

Time is stretching like an elastic string the further from the big bang the greater it stretches and accelerates

All speculation on my part however.
0 Replies
 
amrhima
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 05:50 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;90703 wrote:
Hi Smile,

I think that time only exists where there is a flow of entropy in the system , cause and effect if you like

At absolute zero would time flow?

Movement and time are interlinked, without movement we would have no concept of time e.g. revolution of the earth around the sun.

If we accept Einstein then time simply could not have moved at the moment of creation within the infinite gravity field of the singularity, if you get my drift;but it did. What was the mysterious force that drove and caused the early universe to emerge? Antigravity maybe?


Is time simply change? or there's time independent of change?
I am question
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2009 07:54 pm
@amrhima,
Time is and never was physical. I don't see any examples to give it a physical entity. It only came into existence once our species needed to measure movements and cycles, it has never had a cause and effect on anything. Time can either move slow or fast because we can alter it, its manifested in our conscience. Thats why time fly's by when your having fun because your not paying attention to a number. The law of physics has never explained why time always points to the future, why it is linear. See the funny thing is time never reverses, its a one-way process, but no laws restrict it though. The usual explanation of this is that in order to specify what happens to a system, you not only have to specify the physical laws, but you have to specify some initial or final condition. The question is, Is time a fundamental property of reality or just the macroscopic appearance of things? Time may be an approximate concept that emerges at large scales-a bit like the concept of 'surface of the water,' which makes sense macroscopically but which loses a precise sense at the level of the atoms. Some say that time is a 'spatial dimension', but if it is a dimension, then how do we have the knowledge to question its existence if we can't even comprehend a fourth dimension? :brickwall:
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 01:43 am
@I am question,
I am question;101381 wrote:
Time is and never was physical. I don't see any examples to give it a physical entity. It only came into existence once our species needed to measure movements and cycles, it has never had a cause and effect on anything. Time can either move slow or fast because we can alter it, its manifested in our conscience. Thats why time fly's by when your having fun because your not paying attention to a number. The law of physics has never explained why time always points to the future, why it is linear. See the funny thing is time never reverses, its a one-way process, but no laws restrict it though. The usual explanation of this is that in order to specify what happens to a system, you not only have to specify the physical laws, but you have to specify some initial or final condition. The question is, Is time a fundamental property of reality or just the macroscopic appearance of things? Time may be an approximate concept that emerges at large scales-a bit like the concept of 'surface of the water,' which makes sense macroscopically but which loses a precise sense at the level of the atoms. Some say that time is a 'spatial dimension', but if it is a dimension, then how do we have the knowledge to question its existence if we can't even comprehend a fourth dimension? :brickwall:


You are wrong my friend it is a proved fact that time flows slower in a high gravity field as compared to a lesser one.

If you could hypothetically land on a neutron star and spend what you think is a day there you will find in that enormous gravity field a million years will have passed on earth with its lower gravity fields where time moved faster.

This has been proved by placing extremely accurate atomic clocks on both space craft and airplanes, syconising them with a clock on the ground and comparing the earth and atomic clocks later.

There is always a difference, time moves infinitesimally faster on the air-planes where the gravity is lighter than the higher gravity on earth
(Einstein Special Relativity) Check it out he was clever than yoou and I or definitely smarter than me

Say Alan lands on Jupiter!! interestingly, Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity - his theory of space, time and gravity (No longer theory) says that, due to the higher gravitational potential on Jupiter than on Earth, time as experienced by Alan is moving more slowly "relative" to time experienced by say James back on the Earth.

What does this mean? First, the word "relative" is crucial here: it means that as far as Alan is concerned, nothing in his own experience indicates to his that time is moving more slowly.

The point is, more slowly relative to what? Alan himself feels nothing out of the ordinary, for instance his heart still beats at 60 beats per minute according to his wristwatch. It is only when Alan and James "compare" their experiences of the passage of time that they notice something very strange. Alan is younger than James albeit minutely.

Of course the greater the difference between the two gravity field the greater the affect on time. At the event horizon of a black hole the relative difference between their wristwatches would be billions of years, possibly
I am question
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 11:31 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;101399 wrote:
You are wrong my friend it is a proved fact that time flows slower in a high gravity field as compared to a lesser one.

If you could hypothetically land on a neutron star and spend what you think is a day there you will find in that enormous gravity field a million years will have passed on earth with its lower gravity fields where time moved faster.

This has been proved by placing extremely accurate atomic clocks on both space craft and airplanes, syconising them with a clock on the ground and comparing the earth and atomic clocks later.

There is always a difference, time moves infinitesimally faster on the air-planes where the gravity is lighter than the higher gravity on earth
(Einstein Special Relativity) Check it out he was clever than yoou and I or definitely smarter than me

Say Alan lands on Jupiter!! interestingly, Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity - his theory of space, time and gravity (No longer theory) says that, due to the higher gravitational potential on Jupiter than on Earth, time as experienced by Alan is moving more slowly "relative" to time experienced by say James back on the Earth.

What does this mean? First, the word "relative" is crucial here: it means that as far as Alan is concerned, nothing in his own experience indicates to his that time is moving more slowly.

The point is, more slowly relative to what? Alan himself feels nothing out of the ordinary, for instance his heart still beats at 60 beats per minute according to his wristwatch. It is only when Alan and James "compare" their experiences of the passage of time that they notice something very strange. Alan is younger than James albeit minutely.

Of course the greater the difference between the two gravity field the greater the affect on time. At the event horizon of a black hole the relative difference between their wristwatches would be billions of years, possibly


This seems a bit naive. The general relativity theory has never been proven true, because if it was then it wouldn't be called a theory and we wouldn't have quantum mechanics and theoretical physics today. That example you are giving about the clocks is completely wrong. We say we measure time with clocks, but we see only the hands of the clocks, not time itself. And the hands of a clock are a physical variable like any other. So in a sense we cheat because what we really observe are physical variables as a function of other physical variables, but we represent that as if everything is evolving in time. You need to understand my earlier post and read it a little bit better.
validity
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 04:01 pm
@Alan McDougall,
amrhima;101365 wrote:
Is time simply change? or there's time independent of change?
A good question. How could this difference in nature be teased out? I am currently, and have been for quite a while, in the camp of there is no time independant of change.

Alan McDougall;101399 wrote:
nothing in his own experience indicates to his that time is moving more slowly.
Then I have no reason to conclude that his time is moving at any differenet rate. It is only through comparing the experiences that a difference is noted. If Alans time was moving more slowly then why can not it be detected outside the comparison to another perspective?

Alan McDougall;101399 wrote:
Alan is younger than James albeit minutely.
I do not place any absolute truth in that statement. For it can be equally said that Alan has not aged at any different rate and it is James who has aged quicker than Alan.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2009 12:53 am
@validity,
Einstein Theory Proved


Einstein Theory Proved

April 18, 2007 04:43 PM
by findingDulcinea Staff
NASA's Gravity Probe B confirms one of the central predictions of the general relativity theory: gravity bends space and time.
30 Second Summary

Gravity Probe B has provided the first experimental evidence of the geodetic effect, one of two key propositions of Einstein's general relativity theory.

In the most commonly used analogy for general relativity, space is compared to a rubber mat stretched flat. The surface of the mat bends if a heavy object is placed on it. In a similar way, the Earth bends what Einstein called "space-time."

The NASA probe contains four ultra-precise gyroscopes to measure that curvature. The orbit of the satellite is actually a very slow fall to Earth. Because that fall is over curved space-time, the axes of the gyroscopes move differently to how they would were the surface of space-time flat. Like a ship going prow-first into a whirlpool, the axes are tipped on the approach to earth.

Over the next eight months, the probe will return data to test the second key prediction of general relativity: frame-dragging. Does the Earth's spinning drag space-time, making it spin like the whirlpool in the above analogy?
Headline

The final results of the experiment will appear in December 2007, when scientists expect to confirm frame-dragging--a phenomenon much harder to detect than the geodetic effect.
Source: Scientific American


Key Players

"Gravity Prove B is the relativity gyroscope experiment developed by NASA and Stanford University to test two unverified predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity." NASA provides elegant animations illustrating the curvature of space-time.
Source: NASA


Albert Einstein was born in Germany on March 14, 1879. He received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921. "At the start of his scientific work, Einstein realized the inadequacies of Newtonian mechanics and his special theory of relativity stemmed from an attempt to reconcile the laws of mechanics with the laws of the electromagnetic field."
Source: Albert Einstein


Related Links

The earth is not round, says Scientific American. Our planet is in fact a "bumpy spheroid."
Source: Scientific American


Reference Material

The John F. Kennedy Space Center in California launched the satellite on April 20, 2007. The launch and mission is can be followed at the John F. Kennedy Space Center site.
Source: The John F. Kennedy Space Center


The "special theory of relativity" shows that time and length are not absolute, but their values vary; it also produced the world's most famous equation, E=MC2, describing the equivalence of mass and energy. The "general theory of relativity" demonstrated mathematically the curvature of space and time.
Source: Einstein Online


The short answer to the question of what is the General Theory of Relativity is that "according to Einstein the presence of a gravitational field alters the rules of geometry in space-time. The effect is to make it seem as if space-time is 'curved'."
Source: Stanford University


As with much of science, general relativity is counter-intuitive. Time can travel at different speeds for different people; two people can measure the same object with perfect accuracy and produce different results; mass and energy are different expressions of the same force. This section of the NASA Web site tries to shed some light on these difficulties.
Source: NASA
0 Replies
 
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 01:29 am
@I am question,
I am question;101381 wrote:
Time is and never was physical. I don't see any examples to give it a physical entity. It only came into existence once our species needed to measure movements and cycles, it has never had a cause and effect on anything. Time can either move slow or fast because we can alter it, its manifested in our conscience. Thats why time fly's by when your having fun because your not paying attention to a number. The law of physics has never explained why time always points to the future, why it is linear. See the funny thing is time never reverses, its a one-way process, but no laws restrict it though. The usual explanation of this is that in order to specify what happens to a system, you not only have to specify the physical laws, but you have to specify some initial or final condition. The question is, Is time a fundamental property of reality or just the macroscopic appearance of things? Time may be an approximate concept that emerges at large scales-a bit like the concept of 'surface of the water,' which makes sense macroscopically but which loses a precise sense at the level of the atoms. Some say that time is a 'spatial dimension', but if it is a dimension, then how do we have the knowledge to question its existence if we can't even comprehend a fourth dimension? :brickwall:

I have approached this issue from a philosophical angle, since I am not trained in the complexities of quantum or relativistic mathematics. My conclusions have been that time, if it is a dimension at all, must be a collapsed dimension. All that exists of time, as we imagine it, is the here and now of it, the present. The reality of things is change, as amrhima and validity (and you?) have suggested. Change happens only in the present. There is no change in the past, but only memory, and the other traces of conditions prior to change, that exist in the present. (The location of each grain of sand on the ocean shore is the sum of all past changes that have occurred to that grain of sand added to the location and condition of its point of origin.) There is no future, but only the innate potentials intrinsic to conditions in the present that collapse the probability functions that bring about change. (Real properties intrinsic to any particle and its environment of detection, including inertia and momentum and quantum effects, determine the changes that particle will undergo.) Thus the past and future both exist in and contribute to the ever-changing present.

If we accept that change is the reality for which time is only a measure, then we may speak of the passage of time (the speed of time's passing from future to past) as a rate of change based upon real physical properties that underlie such changes. Instead of saying that time slows down for objects in an accelerated or increased gravitational frame of reference, then we may say instead that the rate of change within that frame of reference has slowed. This would mean that something within that framework had a universal effect upon everything within it resulting in the slowing of the process of change within it--at least relative to a stationary observer.

There is no doubt that our experience of time is an effect of short term immediate memories that allow us to compare what seems to be the present to moments immediately preceding it. This suggests that much of what we describe as time is an internal phenomenon of consciousness and the mind. Here I speak of consciousness, not as it is elsewhere defined, but simply as "that-which-experiences" in its broadest sense. Given this special understanding of consciousness as nothing more than the specific agent of our being by which we experience everything (our selves and our world), it is possible to conceive of everything in the universe as having such consciousness; for it is precisely "that-which-experiences" by which every subatomic particle, every atom, every molecule, every cell, every organism, everything in the universe is able to interact with every other thing within the range of its detection. The consciousness of an atom is not sentient, rather it is an automatic responsiveness to the stimulations of its environment upon the properties intrinsic to it. Human consciousness is far more complex and does involve sentience, if somewhat less than we might fancy.

Although I come to define consciousness from an internal analysis of my own human experience, it may also be seen as a physical characteristic or property and examined by scientific analysis. It identifies, for example, any change in the motion of an electron due to the force exerted by electrical charges in its vicinity, not as effects of the force pushing or pulling the passive electron, but rather as active changes in its motion enacted by the electron in response to its experience of those forces. This is not an overriding revelation, but only a different way of looking at physical events consistent with Feynman diagrams and the current view that forces are conveyed by particles (bosons).

Every event or process, every change that constitutes what we conceive as time, is the result of actions initiated by particles in response to their experience of their environment (e.g., other particles with which they interact). Something about gravity and acceleration affects the interaction of these particles and the aggregate objects and beings they comprise, resulting in the process of stimulus and response (the basis of all experience) slowing with increases of gravity and acceleration relative to similar processes in a stationary or unincreased gravity frame of reference.

Could this potentially be consistent with your views? :perplexed:

Samm
amrhima
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 03:06 pm
@I am question,
I am question;101523 wrote:
This seems a bit naive. The general relativity theory has never been proven true, because if it was then it wouldn't be called a theory and we wouldn't have quantum mechanics and theoretical physics today.


Sorry but this is what is naive, a scientific theory does not just mean hypothesis, for the millionth time a scientific theory is confirmed hypothesis, general relativity has made many predictions that were true and is very accurate describing the macro world, one of the predictions is that light is affected by gravity, another is a more complicated orbit for each planet to name a few. But the case is not only about general relativity or any particular theory, it's about the use of the word.
0 Replies
 
I am question
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 12:28 pm
@SammDickens,
Samm;102301 wrote:
I have approached this issue from a philosophical angle, since I am not trained in the complexities of quantum or relativistic mathematics. My conclusions have been that time, if it is a dimension at all, must be a collapsed dimension. All that exists of time, as we imagine it, is the here and now of it, the present. The reality of things is change, as amrhima and validity (and you?) have suggested. Change happens only in the present. There is no change in the past, but only memory, and the other traces of conditions prior to change, that exist in the present. (The location of each grain of sand on the ocean shore is the sum of all past changes that have occurred to that grain of sand added to the location and condition of its point of origin.) There is no future, but only the innate potentials intrinsic to conditions in the present that collapse the probability functions that bring about change. (Real properties intrinsic to any particle and its environment of detection, including inertia and momentum and quantum effects, determine the changes that particle will undergo.) Thus the past and future both exist in and contribute to the ever-changing present.

If we accept that change is the reality for which time is only a measure, then we may speak of the passage of time (the speed of time's passing from future to past) as a rate of change based upon real physical properties that underlie such changes. Instead of saying that time slows down for objects in an accelerated or increased gravitational frame of reference, then we may say instead that the rate of change within that frame of reference has slowed. This would mean that something within that framework had a universal effect upon everything within it resulting in the slowing of the process of change within it--at least relative to a stationary observer.

There is no doubt that our experience of time is an effect of short term immediate memories that allow us to compare what seems to be the present to moments immediately preceding it. This suggests that much of what we describe as time is an internal phenomenon of consciousness and the mind. Here I speak of consciousness, not as it is elsewhere defined, but simply as "that-which-experiences" in its broadest sense. Given this special understanding of consciousness as nothing more than the specific agent of our being by which we experience everything (our selves and our world), it is possible to conceive of everything in the universe as having such consciousness; for it is precisely "that-which-experiences" by which every subatomic particle, every atom, every molecule, every cell, every organism, everything in the universe is able to interact with every other thing within the range of its detection. The consciousness of an atom is not sentient, rather it is an automatic responsiveness to the stimulations of its environment upon the properties intrinsic to it. Human consciousness is far more complex and does involve sentience, if somewhat less than we might fancy.

Although I come to define consciousness from an internal analysis of my own human experience, it may also be seen as a physical characteristic or property and examined by scientific analysis. It identifies, for example, any change in the motion of an electron due to the force exerted by electrical charges in its vicinity, not as effects of the force pushing or pulling the passive electron, but rather as active changes in its motion enacted by the electron in response to its experience of those forces. This is not an overriding revelation, but only a different way of looking at physical events consistent with Feynman diagrams and the current view that forces are conveyed by particles (bosons).

Every event or process, every change that constitutes what we conceive as time, is the result of actions initiated by particles in response to their experience of their environment (e.g., other particles with which they interact). Something about gravity and acceleration affects the interaction of these particles and the aggregate objects and beings they comprise, resulting in the process of stimulus and response (the basis of all experience) slowing with increases of gravity and acceleration relative to similar processes in a stationary or unincreased gravity frame of reference.

Could this potentially be consistent with your views? :perplexed:

Samm


Thats a lot. What Im trying to state here in the most simplest and shortest way is: Time DOES NOT exist in the physical universe, but in a general consensus of society through definition, it DOES exist, only if you don't separate it semantically.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 04:46 pm
@I am question,
I am question;102831 wrote:
Thats a lot. What Im trying to state here in the most simplest and shortest way is: Time DOES NOT exist in the physical universe, but in a general consensus of society through definition, it DOES exist, only if you don't separate it semantically.


How can entropy flow without time??:perplexed:
I am question
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 05:09 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;102881 wrote:
How can entropy flow without time??:perplexed:


When given a system whose exact description is unknown, its entropy is defined as the amount of information needed to exactly specify the state of the system (to the full extent that it can be described in the universe itself). Entropy is just energy in a specific location, so you can identify that location. Listen, think outside the box man. Take time out of the equation, it seems that your saying without time there is no energy, where can you prove this? And don't say its general relativity, because the only thing Einstein said about time was it was timeless, that we are in this space-time continuum, he said it was an illusion. Don't get stuck on his theories, thats what a lot of people do, keep your mind wandering and open to everything.
SammDickens
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 05:50 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Are we saying that time is nothing more than clocks and calendars used to mark the occurrence of this or that event? Is it like the ruler we lay down on paper to measure the dimensions of a drawing? Time is a temporal ruler? and the drawing is reality?

Samm
I am question
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 06:06 pm
@SammDickens,
Samm;102896 wrote:
Are we saying that time is nothing more than clocks and calendars used to mark the occurrence of this or that event? Is it like the ruler we lay down on paper to measure the dimensions of a drawing? Time is a temporal ruler? and the drawing is reality?

Samm


If you want to put it that way. Think if time was not involved with a pregnancy occurring in nine months. That baby will still pop out if time wasn't involved, why? Anyone ever heard of biology? Don't interlink time with change because change of anything is due to its surroundings and decay(in a aging process). Its not linked with motion, its not time that makes the planets orbit the sun, if this is true then everybody must of failed 5th grade science. It seems so hard to rule time out of the equation, but you must push yourself farther and try to understand its not there. C'mon people I know every single on of you guys and girls are creative. Just think hard on what exactly any clock we have ever created actually does. Your measuring time, certainly there's no denying that, but your not physically taking time and looking at it. You can't physically put time into a laboratory and study it. A clock is not time we should all know it that, it measures time, but where do you grab time and put it in your hand. But like I said before it does exist, its linear like our conscience. the past is just memories and the future is an expansion of your chosen actions. You can say there is a tomorrow but when you get there your just going to rename it 'today'. Everything is only present tense. We shouldn't say anything is a dimension, because we wont have proof, we only live and understand in three, we can question a fourth dimension but would we be able to understand it?
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 06:51 pm
@I am question,
I am question;102885 wrote:
When given a system whose exact description is unknown, its entropy is defined as the amount of information needed to exactly specify the state of the system (to the full extent that it can be described in the universe itself). Entropy is just energy in a specific location, so you can identify that location. Listen, think outside the box man. Take time out of the equation, it seems that your saying without time there is no energy, where can you prove this? And don't say its general relativity, because the only thing Einstein said about time was it was timeless, that we are in this space-time continuum, he said it was an illusion. Don't get stuck on his theories, thats what a lot of people do, keep your mind wandering and open to everything.


Heck I wish I was as sure of my facts as you are. Are you saying time is only a local measure of how we move through space??
I am question
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 07:04 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;102906 wrote:
Heck I wish I was as sure of my facts as you are. Are you saying time is only a local measure of how we move through space??


If you want to say that point A in space is where you start, and you are trying to get to Point B, you measure the distance in length of course, then you measure it in time. But if you dont measure the distance between each point then how do you know if your at Point B? Right thats easy common sense. If you dont measure the time of the distance traveled from each point, you will still be able to travel, but you don't have numbers telling you the duration of an event through movement, but you still reach point B. Of course it is a measurement of cycles we perceive in everyday life. It simply has no cause and effect. The manifestation of time show us how powerful our mind really is.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 08:45 pm
@I am question,
I am question;102911 wrote:
If you want to say that point A in space is where you start, and you are trying to get to Point B, you measure the distance in length of course, then you measure it in time. But if you dont measure the distance between each point then how do you know if your at Point B? Right thats easy common sense. If you dont measure the time of the distance traveled from each point, you will still be able to travel, but you don't have numbers telling you the duration of an event through movement, but you still reach point B. Of course it is a measurement of cycles we perceive in everyday life. It simply has no cause and effect. The manifestation of time show us how powerful our mind really is.


Good post!! By the way Einstein never said there was no such thing as time, he said that there is no such thing as universal time. In other words clocks run differently in different locations in the universe relative to one another. So you have a good point!

Isaac Newton believed if you could synchronise all the clocks in the universe they would stay in synch. relative to one another.

If you exclude time from the universe then you open up the possibility of an infinite everlasting universe. This could not happen in a universe where time is a constant, e.g. the arrow of time would be pushed back to infinity
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Nov, 2009 12:22 am
@I am question,
I am question;102911 wrote:
If you want to say that point A in space is where you start, and you are trying to get to Point B, you measure the distance in length of course, then you measure it in time. But if you dont measure the distance between each point then how do you know if your at Point B? Right thats easy common sense. If you dont measure the time of the distance traveled from each point, you will still be able to travel, but you don't have numbers telling you the duration of an event through movement, but you still reach point B. Of course it is a measurement of cycles we perceive in everyday life. It simply has no cause and effect. The manifestation of time show us how powerful our mind really is.


What you are referring to here is velocity. But I think you have really bent the concept into something other than what it is and that something is not quite correct.

If you have zero velocity then you will never reach point B. Unless you want to be technical and ask the question if you are a passenger with zero velocity but the vehicle is providing it instead. Regardless of who is doing the moving, if the velocity is zero, you will never arrive at point B.

Therefore velocity is distance/time

At any point if you make time zero or stopped, then your velocity MUST also be zero or stopped. You can not ignore this fact yet you are insisting it can be done. It can't.

I know people are going to ask about light and that is even easier to answer. Regardless of what you hear, time does not stop at or near the speed of light. If it did, it wouldn't have a velocity, but the photons do have a velocity and we can measure it.

The only thing that appears to stop is from the observers point of view. Just like when you are sitting in a car and watching some other object near by that is moving, it appears to be moving in slow motion. If you were traveling on a photon, everything would appear to be stopped but it is not.
However time would move normally for you sitting on the photon. If time stopped while you were on the photon you wouldn't even be able to do anything. Your eyes wouldn't blink, you wouldn't breath, you wouldn't even think because all those things require time.

Not to mention again, you can't have velocity without a time signature. Even Einsteins equation has in it time but people ignore it.

The speed of light is the distance light travels in a given amount of time. In other words a velocity.
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
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/01/2023 at 06:55:00