10
   

Why does time not exist?

 
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2015 08:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
As far as I know, yes. Hence Einstein's theory of relativity.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2015 09:02 pm
@Ragman,
Quote:
This test has been duplicated many times and is known phenomenon ...indicating the time is relative and varies depending on the effect of gravity..Arrgh..I can't explain it right.


You're right, this has been tested many times, and clocks do run slower the deeper into the "gravity well" you are.

This proves that the rate of periodic regularly recurring events does SLOW DOWN. But it does not prove that time is "relative," which is a different concept than that the rate of clocks vary.

In fact, in general relativity this is an absolute effect, not a relative one. It is NOT a frame-dependent phenomenon.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2015 09:03 pm
@Tuna,
Tuna wrote:

I met a guy who had a precise sense of time. He said it came from watching episodes of I Love Lucy as a child. Each episode was exactly 30 minutes long. He learned to stack 30 minute intervals. He said that up to about three hours after seeing a clock, he could tell you the time (assuming that clock was right.)

My time-sense is very elastic. I thought everybody was like that. In fact, I wouldn't have believed the dude had that ability if I hadn't seen it demonstrated. Precise time-sense is as astonishing to me as perfect pitch.

The moral to the story is: people don't experience the world in exactly the same way. Your way may be unique.



I used to work with a guy who was amazed how well I could judge time during the day. He would ask me the time several times a day. I always had it correct. Now that I am retired, I doubt I could still do it.
layman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2015 09:09 pm
@layman,
What a lot of people don't understand is that it has never been proven that "time is relative." Some ASSUME that it is, and proceed from there.

Some ASSUME that it isn't, and proceed from there.

As far as relative motion goes, both assumptions give the same predictions.
Ragman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2015 09:12 pm
@edgarblythe,
I lead a simple life:
When I open the shade, and I see light then I know that it's day time. If when I look another time and it's dark, then it's night time.

If I look over at the phone when it rings and I see a certain telephone number..I know it's a relative. I don't answer it...hence, the non-relative state of my existence.
layman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2015 09:13 pm
@Ragman,
Quote:
I don't answer it...hence, the non-relative state of my existence.


Good work, Rags!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2015 09:47 pm
@layman,
I have a bit of understanding how time is relative. It's when they get into the nuts and bolts of it all I get lost.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2015 09:49 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
I have a bit of understanding how time is relative.


Well, if ya ask me, Ed, it aint relative.

And no one can prove I'm wrong, either. Not Einstein, not nobody.

PS: And many prominent physicists agree with me. Well, it's more like I agree with them, but, still....
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2015 10:17 pm
As with all science, we take what we know and go with it, until we learn more.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 05:11 am
@edgarblythe,
I don't think it's quite as straightforward as that. I would say we go with what we need. Scientific knowledge serves human needs, and one of those needs could be exploration for no practical purpose at the time. For example, I seem to remember that the mathematics which explains electrical power transmission was explored/discovered about two hundred years prior to a concept of electric current. This interplay between mathematical models and practical applications seems to be at the root of your issue of 'understanding time'. The fact that much of Relativity and quantum mechanics tends to be counter-intuitive does not sit well with their practical uses in modern technology.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 05:35 am
@fresco,
Just a matter of context, isn't it?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 05:47 am
And all this science
I don't understand . . .


0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Dec, 2015 08:53 am
@edgarblythe,
Context - of course , but the abstract models are tending to generate new observations/contexts rather than merely 'explain' them. Who would have thought that identical clocks would have gone out of sync due to differing reference frames had it not been for Relativity ?And that issue is now central to correction factors in GPS systems.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Putting Time In Perspective - Discussion by Olivier5
What happens when time stop? - Question by 5D
Time simply does not exist - Discussion by xxxx
The elusive NOW - Discussion by Rickoshay75
Time - Question by Genius600
simple relativity question - Question by ralphiep
How do you define Time? - Discussion by tcis
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2019 at 07:16:29