0
   

Two kinds of time

 
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 06:28 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Mate time is just rate of change and that is NOT universal at all.


Rate of change is not universal, I agree, Fil. But "time" is not "rate of change."
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 12:27 pm
@centrox,
Quote:
crazy nonsense
That's what they said about Einstein
centrox
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 12:44 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
crazy nonsense
That's what they said about Einstein

They have said it about lots of fools and lunatics as well.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 02:02 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Mate time is just
Fil you guys keep me alive with ur jesting
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2017 11:18 am
@centrox,
Quote:
it's crazy nonsense
Yet Cen it explains the mysterious changes taking place in the moving object in the simplest terms compatible with intuition. For instance the ship moving past is judged heavier than parked 'cause it's moving faster than we think; then speeding up, apparently traveling near c, appears to have shrunk to near nothing because light from its front and back reach us at the 'same time'

...while the pilot's clock has appeared to stop, his trip seeming to him instantaneous, because it is instantaneous, ....etc etc
centrox
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2017 12:25 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
it explains the mysterious changes taking place in the moving object in the simplest terms compatible with intuition.

Why do explanations have to be compatible with "intuition"?
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2017 12:29 pm
@centrox,
Quote:
have to be compatible...?

Of course Cen they don't. But Science has shown that the simpler explanation of some phenom or other is usually the right one
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2017 12:40 pm
@centrox,
centrox wrote:

dalehileman wrote:
it explains the mysterious changes taking place in the moving object in the simplest terms compatible with intuition.

Why do explanations have to be compatible with "intuition"?



Its because Dale is an armchair physicist. He doesn't know any equations or how to express the point using math.

The funny thing is some here assume Einstein needed time to be flexible but it was the other way around, the math pointed out that time HAD to be different per motion reference frame.

If time is the same everywhere and does not reflect a reference frame in motion then space HAS to be different in size as the object accelerates.
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2017 01:28 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
He doesn't know any equations or how to express the point using math
So simple, Krump, no need to. I've described it in earlier OP's yet nobody has found in it any sort of contradiction
centrox
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2017 02:17 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
I've described it in earlier OP's yet nobody has found in it any sort of contradiction

People have found plenty, you just ignore them.
centrox
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2017 02:37 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:
Its because Dale is an armchair physicist.

Something that may not be intuitive to a layman may be inituitive to a particle physicist or mathematician.

Interesting article on Wikipedia about "naïve physics" -

Quote:
Some examples of naïve physics include commonly understood, intuitive, or everyday-observed rules of nature:

What goes up must come down
A dropped object falls straight down
A solid object cannot pass through another solid object
A vacuum sucks things towards it
An object is either at rest or moving, in an absolute sense
Two events are either simultaneous or they are not

Many of these and similar ideas formed the basis for the first works in formulating and systematizing physics by Aristotle and the medieval scholastics in Western civilization. In the modern science of physics, they were gradually contradicted by the work of Galileo, Newton, and others. The idea of absolute simultaneity survived until 1905, when the special theory of relativity and its supporting experiments discredited it.


And counter intuition...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterintuitive

Quote:
examples are:
In science:

Gödel's incompleteness theorems - for thousands of years, it was confidently assumed that arithmetic, and therefore similar systems of logic, were completely solid in terms of being reliable for deductions. Gödel proved that such systems could not be both complete and consistent.

Wave–particle duality / photoelectric effect - As demonstrated by the double slit experiment light and quantum particles behave as both waves and particles.

A significant number of people find it difficult to accept the mathematical fact that 0.999... equals 1.[5][6]

The Monty Hall problem* poses a simple yes-or-no question from probability that even professionals can find difficult to reconcile with their intuition.

Horseshoe orbits in orbital mechanics

That light may pass through two perpendicularly oriented polarizing filters if a third filter, not oriented perpendicular to either of the other two, is placed between them.[7]

The Mpemba effect, in which, under certain circumstances, a warmer body of water will freeze faster than a cooler body in the same environment.

That water vapor is lighter than air and is the reason clouds float and barometers work.[8]

In politics and economics:

The violation of the monotonicity criterion in voting systems

David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage that suggests that comparative advantage is in general more important than absolute advantage

Many examples of cognitive bias, such as:

The clustering illusion that suggests that significant patterns exist in a set of random points when no other cause than chance is present

That alignments of random points on a plane are vastly easier to find than intuition would suggest


*The Monty Hall problem is a counter-intuitive statistics puzzle:

There are 3 doors, behind which are two goats and a car.
You mentally pick a door (call it door 1), but don't open it yet.

Monty Hall, the game show host, examines the other doors (2 & 3) and always opens one of them with a goat (Both doors might have goats; he’ll randomly pick one to open)

Your choice: Do you stick with door 1 (original guess) or switch to the other unopened door? Does it matter?

Answer: the odds aren’t 50-50. If you switch doors you’ll win 2/3 of the time. Many people have had trouble getting this, including eminent mathematicians. Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating the predicted result.

https://i.imgbox.com/VujUQhTd.jpg
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2017 05:26 pm
@centrox,
Quote:
you just ignore them
Cen if you provide links to a few examples I'd gladly address 'em
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Alternative Einstein's riddle answer - Discussion by cedor
Need market for article - Question by dalehileman
Theory of Gravity - Discussion by edgarblythe
einstein's clock tower - Question by llanwydd
Wait! What about Einstein? - Question by InkRune
I solved Einstein's riddle - Question by Shyann C
Benefits of Modern Gadgets - Question by jefferadkins
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Two kinds of time
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/01/2020 at 05:50:14