10
   

Why does time not exist?

 
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 01:05 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Not so sure about that Lay. I get the distinct impression for instance that even Al was just a teenie bit confused when faced by the Twin Paradox

I also get the impression, after reading a bit, that a subliminal assumption of a stationary ref still survives; it's just that the relativists won't face it head-on


Yeah, I agree, Dale. I have participated in threads elaborating on the difference between theories positing absolute versus relative simultaneity in other threads in the past. One was about 200 pages long but it no longer exists--it was deleted in it's entirely by the admins without notice or explanation. More recently the topic came up in this thread:

http://able2know.org/topic/301703-1

If you have an interest in such issues, that one is still there as far as I know.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 01:57 pm
@layman,
Lay again thank you for your support, a rare commodity these days

...and for the link, which I shall peruse
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 02:10 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
How can the events around us happen in succession, with no time?
My answer, Ed, for what it's worth, apparently not a lot hereabout, is that my view of time-at-a-distance allows you to conclude that your trip to that nearby planet could indeed be considered instantaneous, neatly resolving the simultaneity issue

...as well, incidentally, as others such as explaining to the satisfaction of the intuition the impossibility of reaching light speed as well as your apparently slowing clock and increase in mass

...the last owing simply to my underestimating your velocity

That's not to say time doesn't exist, only that it can be looked at with a new view of relativity, says a brother uneducated lummox

Be happy to elaborate, Ed, if you're at all interested
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 03:04 pm
I mused about the linearity of time here

There were some good responses.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 06:58 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
No. It depends what you mean by 'precise'. In physics 'precise' means 'sufficiently empirically consistent with the paradigm in which the term is being used'. For example, the concept of 'an electron' is understood to account for measurements in experiments and causally interdependent with other specified particles, but the 'exact nature of an electron' or even its 'position' cannot be specified. As for 'time', if Edgar's QM quote is valid, it implies that the concept of 'time' has no utility in a quantum paradigm even if it does in a Newtonian one.( I seem to remember Cox writing about having to redefine 'velocity' in quantum terms following findings such as 'non-locality'). In short 'precise definition' is not equivalent to 'existence'.

No one is talking about the position of an electron, I'm talking about word definitions which are always precise in physics, and, just for the record, the position of an electron can be specified to any desired degree of accuracy. It's a simultaneous specification of position and momentum, that cannot be done to arbitrary position because the two operators have a non-zero commutator. However, I am not talking about anything like that. I am talking about word definitions, which are not vague in physics.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 01:09 am
@Brandon9000,
"...to any desired degree of accuracy...'
That's the whole point which I won't labor. Precision is not an independent absolute. It is about 'what works' within a paradigm. Try defining 'color' precisely. I suggest 'time' is an equivalent concept because the use of those terms both include the 'non-empirical'. (I am assuming you know that 'wavelength of light' is insufficient)
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 02:51 am
You can't have cause and effect without a "before" and "after." It aint possible for me to have had a drink with Socrates if he died before I was born.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 03:12 am
@layman,
You might not want to. The hangover from that last one was a real killer.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 03:36 am
@roger,
Well, Rog, ya know, hemlock aint so bad in moderation. Soc's problem was that he was a sot who would guzzle that **** by the gallon.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 10:09 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
"...to any desired degree of accuracy...'
That's the whole point which I won't labor. Precision is not an independent absolute. It is about 'what works' within a paradigm. Try defining 'color' precisely. I suggest 'time' is an equivalent concept because the use of those terms both include the 'non-empirical'. (I am assuming you know that 'wavelength of light' is insufficient)

Color: The sensation that a particular wavelength of light makes on the eye. Example: Light of wavelength 495–570 nm will produce the sensation "green."
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 02:18 pm
@Brandon9000,
Smile I see you are not aware of the complexities of color perception.
You will find plenty of references on google.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 02:27 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
Smile I see you are not aware of the complexities of color perception.
You will find plenty of references on google.

What, specifically, is wrong with my definition? A definition doesn't mean that there's nothing more to be said. It's just the starting point for further discussion. What physics as a field does, and I can say this with some authority, is make clear definitions. I have just given clear definition which corresponds pretty closely to the standard usage. If you believe that physics uses terms which are only vaguely defined, then you're just wrong. Energy, for example, is defined as "the ability to do work." The point isn't that it's the end of discussing energy. The point is that the definition is clear and agreed upon by others in the field.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 02:39 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Energy, for example, is defined as "the ability to do work."


Well, if that's the definition, I aint no energy. Some say mass is energy, and I have mass. But I aint capable of doin no work. I'm too lazy.

Wouldn't the "ability" to do work just be potential energy, not actual energy, btw?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 02:40 pm
@Brandon9000,
The 'sensation' that a particular wavelength results in is affected by
(a) physiology of the eye (b) physiology of the brain (c) mood of subject (d) cultural experience of subject (e) exposure history......and these are just for 'light'. When it comes to color of objects even more factors come into play.
In fact 'color perception' has been variously used by psychologists, anthropologists and philosophers as a convenient microcosm of 'observer-observed' interaction.
As far as physics is concerned 'color' is a pretty nebulous concept, whereas 'wavelength' is of course specifically related to electron orbital transitions.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 02:41 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
The 'sensation' that a particular wavelength results in is affected by
(a) physiology of the eye (b) physiology of the brain (c) mood of subject (d) cultural experience of subject (e) exposure history......and these are just for 'light'. When it comes to color of objects even more factors come into play.
In fact 'color perception has been variously used by psychologists, anthropologists and philosophers as a convenient microcosm of 'observer-observed' interaction.

And what does that have to do with the definition? Maybe green doesn't look the same to me as to you. We still define words and I have given something pretty close to the standard definition.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 02:51 pm
@Brandon9000,
There was a later edit to the above which has a bearing on the answer to your last question. The experience of 'time' can be equally diverse in relationship to human activities, irrespective of contextually bound physical definitions.

BTW the color issues above have nothing to do with the vacuous question 'do you see green when I see green'. They have more to do with 'will you say green when I say green'
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 04:01 pm
Lawd, I wonder whatsamatta with time?
Seems like everything done changed...
That there woman I been luvvin...
She done took up with another man...



0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 04:46 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Quote:
Energy, for example, is defined as "the ability to do work."


Well, if that's the definition, I aint no energy. Some say mass is energy, and I have mass. But I aint capable of doin no work. I'm too lazy.

Wouldn't the "ability" to do work just be potential energy, not actual energy, btw?

This is a longstanding definition in physics, centuries old.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 04:48 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
There was a later edit to the above which has a bearing on the answer to your last question. The experience of 'time' can be equally diverse in relationship to human activities, irrespective of contextually bound physical definitions.

BTW the color issues above have nothing to do with the vacuous question 'do you see green when I see green'. They have more to do with 'will you say green when I say green'

I repeat, in physics there are clear definitions which essentially all physicists agree about. For mechanical things, the definitions usually date back centuries and are taught in high school physics classes all over the world.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 04:50 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
"It is not easy to understand energy well enough to use [the word] right. [It displays no understanding to say] "energy makes it move." It would be equally well to say that "God makes it move," or "spirit makes it move," or "movability makes it move." (Richard Feynman)
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 07:38:38