Is time linear?

@Setanta,

Perception is everything.

0 Replies

@neologist,

No. Just the human perception of Time. Once we all realize that we are human beings and only LOVE matters. Things such as lighting fast space travel and other secrets of life will be revealed to us.

0 Replies

Time doesn't exist physically.

Time is just a measure.

This measure of time is obtained by the comparison of a regular motion against the motion or decay of other things.

Example, you compare the motion of earth rotating in reference to the Sun. The period of rotation is called a day.

You compare this regular motion against your motion driving in a car from New York to Florida with short stops and takes you a day of traveling.

The dilatation of time, flowing of time, and similar characteristics given to time are no more than fantasies invented by lunatics.

Time can't dilate because the motion of objects because time doesn't exist.

To verify what I state, just search for the detection of time, the method used, the person(s) involved in such a detection of a flowing of time, and you will find that nothing, zero, nada will demonstrate the physical existence of time.

The whole theory of relativity is a fake, a fraud and Einstein wasn't a genius but a retarded dude.

We need liberals turning down statues of Einstein because we can't have and honor images of stupid dudes.

0 Replies

@neologist,

This is an old discussion, and many of us have contributed our .02c worth. I couldn't find the original, so I've added the following. This one explains it a little differently, but it's the same idea. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2949168/Time-Earth-moves-SLOWER-space-Planet-s-orbit-sun-galaxy-gives-extra-second-WEEK.html

0 Replies

@neologist,

Time can measure two types of movement, linear and rotational. In linear movement time measures distance by change of location per certain time period. In rotational movement particles cycle back to the original location. Time then is measuring rations per certain time or cycles. The interesting thing about rotating particles is that is how we store information. Without rotation information storage is impossible. All atoms rotate and store information. Our understanding of time, is the result of our ability to understand the information being stored in rotating objects, and/or our ability to observe rotating objects (atoms) moving through space in linear movement over a period of time. We have this ability because we are constructed of rotating particles that trap the information in our bodies long enough so our bodies can observe information for a period time and thus sense it. Relativity is the math that explains how atoms which are rotating objects move through the Higgs Field (which is constructed of rotating virtual particles) exchange momentum between real and virtual particles. We can sense rotation and distance only sequentially, thus time is linear. But when matter exchanges energy, and causes movement of the virtual particles of the Higgs field a warping the space time continuum is produced. This warping is exhibited differently to different observers according to their location and speed, because there speed and relative location are warping the continuum simultaneously and differently than the particle being observed, and any other observer.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

When an object accelerates, the acceleration affects the body, not so the measure of time.

Like you eat a lot and your body increases its volume. Eating a lot will affect your body, not so the measure called "volume".

What the idiot of Einstein thought, was that speed will aftect the measure of time and that the bodies won't be affected at the point of neither "ffeling" any changes.

No doubt that the stupidity of Einstein is obvious when we see how much the astronauts are affected in outer space.

Even the atomic clocks malfunction when are sent to outer space. Atomic clocks work by the principle of having the atom of Caesium with a fixed vibration, a receptor will count the vibrations and will set a "tic" after a certain number of vibrations.

When the atomic clock is exposed to a different gravity and speed, other than the one it has been calibrated, it will start to malfunction.

This is to say, gravity and speed will affect the body, not so the measure of time.

When is about the human body, it is just to get use to a certain routine, when the body adapts to certain duties, and this won't mean any memorizing inside the atoms and crap like that.

Einstein was a poor idiot, no doubt about it.

Physics is very simple to understand, but some lunatics who believe that time exists physically, that there are other universes, etc, these dudes confuse themselves and confuse others with pure pseudo science.

Inventions like the God's particle, theory of strings, and sh*t like that, are laughable because are not scientific at all but pure fantasies.

Again, science is based in facts, and in your message above you have said a lot of imagination but not a single fact.

1 Reply

@cameronleon,

Higgs field, dark matter, dark energy and the Higgs boson, are all imagined fields and particles to explain factual observations we have obtained from particle accelerators, and the movement of galaxies. These hypothetical imagined fields and particles might explain what physically causes the strong nuclear force and gravity to exist so that we can measure them. Fortunately we can detect atoms of gas and can tell the change in density of the atmosphere causes wind. We are finally hypothesizing something similar to a change in density of the atmosphere causing wind by hypothesizing gravity is a change in the density of the space time continuum. See Entropic Gravity.
You can say time doesn't exist physically but, does that make sense when you can say clocks physically exist, and they do physically measure time. Maybe we should say clocks and time give a physical representation to something that isn't physical, in the same way a word gives a physical representation to something that isn't physical like an idea about that word.

1 Reply

@neologist,

I hope it is.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

You can say time doesn't exist physically but, does that make sense when you can say clocks physically exist, and they do physically measure time. Maybe we should say clocks and time give a physical representation to something that isn't physical, in the same way a word gives a physical representation to something that isn't physical like an idea about that word.

Clocks were invented as a way to have a measure with more detailed information.

Before clocks. the measure called time was very simple or primitive.

Traveling from one place to another was measured as "a day of walk, three days of walk, half day riding in a horse, etc."

The measure of time was invented by observing the regular motion of rotation of the earth, and this period of a complete rotation was compared with the motion of the travelers, the activities of people, etc.

Later, the invention of a solar clock helped for a more accurate information because the total period of shadow was divided by lines which were called hours. A 24 parts were designated in this division of the measure called time.

Later, after inventing the water clock, the sand clock, someone invented the mechanical clock, which was no other thing but the same day divided in 24 parts, but represented by a circumference with numbers on the edge and needles pointing them in a continued motion.

The device was calibrated according to the period of a day obtained from the rotation of the earth in reference to the Sun.

Then, clocks give a physical representation to something that indeed does exist and happens, which is the rotation of earth around the Sun.

Calendars give physical representation of earth's orbit around the Sun.

0 Replies

@neologist,

I'll have a go at explaining relativity simply:

Imagine that you are standing still watching a train go past. On the train is a friend of yours.
Both of you have a simple clock that is constructed from two mirrors, one on the ground the other at head height. Between these mirrors is a ball of light bouncing at a rate of once per second.

Watching your clock you see the ball bouncing up and down vertically. Your friend (on the train) sees their ball bouncing identically.
However, when you watch their clock moving past you on the train, you see the ball moving in a zigzag with the movement of the train.
Therefore, from your perspective the distance their ball moving is greater than yours. Up, down and sideways, in the same amount of time.
To do this, then your perception of their time is different. In reality, it is different.

Well... at least I tried...

1 Reply

@Uplifter,

Quote:

Imagine that you are standing still watching a train go past. On the train is a friend of yours.
Both of you have a simple clock that is constructed from two mirrors, one on the ground the other at head height. Between these mirrors is a ball of light bouncing at a rate of once per second.

Enough!

How in the world can you construct such a "simple clock"?

By empirical means, the bouncing light between mirrors is not even perceptible with naked eyes.

The light will be eventually absorbed by the mirrors.

A ball of light is an interesting ball, to be formed won't be anything simple. And causing it to bounce, wow, as you just say it... nice try...

____________________________________

The example given by Uplifter shows how relativists are slaves of a common fantasy.

They use "thought experiments" which are nothing but children's imaginations.

I still have no idea how they have not realized that sneaky people have pulled their legs with such a good for nothing theory.

0 Replies

@neologist,

The question 'is time linear' assume there is an independent variable called 'time' which plotted against some other variable produces a straight line graph.
Since we already know that 'time' is not independent of 'space', and no other measurable variable is specified, the question is meaningless with respect to mathematical linearity.
If, on the other hand, you are asking whether the 'experience of time' seems to occupy regular duration intervals, the answer is no because such experience depends on context.
Arguments about 'the existence of time' are futile. All concepts have psychological existence irrespective of whether those concepts are correlated with agreed physical parameters.
Heliotrope's immediate answer to the question is along the same lines.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Arguments about 'the existence of time' are futile. All concepts have psychological existence irrespective of whether those concepts are correlated with agreed physical parameters.

In your dreams.

When you say "time dilates" you must empirically show time before dilatation.

Where is it?

1 Reply

@cameronleon,

Ah! Its the 'scientific' holocaust (gas chamber) denier ! Do you really expect anybody to take you seriously on issues of empiricism after coming out with that garbage ?

BTW I never said 'time dilates'. In any case, 'dilation' is merely a useful concept in relativity theory which 'which makes sense of' the mathematics. These attempts at'picturing' are the case in many subatomic and cosmological models, even in cases where contradictory pictures are equally valid as in wave-particle duality.

But nobody would expect a religious pedant to understand the nature and status of scientific models. The thinking involved in such such subtleties would be antithetical to their investment in dogma.

2 Replies

@fresco,

In order to remain an adherent to Christianity, one must ignore science in total. That's because the bible is full of errors, omissions and contradictions.
http://1001biblecontradictions.com/Introduction.html
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I think it depends on what type of 'Christianity'. Polkinghorne is a well known quantum physicist turned Anglican priest.He somehow reconciles the two.
He's worth looking up.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Ah! Its the 'scientific' holocaust (gas chamber) denier ! Do you really expect anybody to take you seriously on issues of empiricism after coming out with that garbage ?

Why not?

Can you prove empirically the existence of time?

No? oh... what a poor loser...

Whatever you say about me is in doubt, because you can't prove empirically whatever you say.

Quote:

BTW I never said 'time dilates'.

And what is the difference?

In several websites where dudes are better prepared than you to explain the fable of Relativity, they have no problem saying that time dilates.

http://physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_special.html

Quote:

In fact, Einstein realized, the answer is both: space “contracts” and time “dilates” (or slows).

And you continued

Quote:

In any case, 'dilation' is merely a useful concept in relativity theory which 'which makes sense of' the mathematics. These attempts at'picturing' are the case in many subatomic and cosmological models, even in cases where contradictory pictures are equally valid as in wave-particle duality.

And again, every relativist but you says different.

http://www.emc2-explained.info/Time-Dilation/#.WeVyZnZry1s

Quote:

The speed of light is very close to 300,000 km per second (186,300 miles per second). It isn't until we get to speeds that are a large fraction of the speed of light that any change in the flow of time becomes apparent. However, at speeds very close to that of light the effect grows in magnitude very rapidly indeed until time almost comes to a standstill. This slowing down of clocks due to high speeds is called time dilation and has a precise mathematical relationship. For the sake of completeness I have included the relevant equation below but you can skip over it and move on to the graph below it if you prefer. The equation for time dilation is...

So, when we move, at whatever speed, time slows down relative to a stationary observer. But note that, for example, the occupants of a rocket travelling at very high speeds would still experience time passing normally. However, if they could see out to an Earth-bound clock it would appear, to them, to be running too quickly. If an Earth-bound observer could see a clock inside the rocket it would appear to be running too slowly. This is why the theory is called "relativity", it is because time is relative to whoever is observing it at a particular speed.

Go and fight with those imbecile relativists with their websites who can't understand that time dilatation is not the same as time "dilates or slows" but "a useful concept in relativity theory which 'which makes sense of' the mathematics."

Quote:

But nobody would expect a religious pedant to understand the nature and status of scientific models.

Oh no, no, no... nobody will do that, you are absolutely right... damn! I say the "unscientific" word... I mean, you are relatively right...

Quote:

The thinking involved in such such subtleties would be antithetical to their investment in dogma.

Say no more.

Now, please tell me, where can I obtain an Idiot ID like yours?

Can't you see that you have evaded a simple request which is the empirical demonstration of the existence of time?

I guess that you as an atheist are demanding the empirical demonstration of the existence of God.

Then, I see no problem asking you for such an evidence.

So far, several others who are playing for the Relativity Team are contradicting your position. They have no problem saying that time dilates, they agree 100% that such a dilatation is verified with the motion of clocks.

http://www.emc2-explained.info/Time-Dilation/index_htm_files/2153.jpg

Moving clocks run slow.
This, above all else, is the key to understanding special relativity

In other words, they depend on the mechanism of a device known as clock.

But it happens that a clock is nothing but a device calibrated to make tic tic tic....

So, the whole theory of Einstein with its time dilatation depends on a tic tic tic machine.

Well, lets use a hammer and break the damn tic tic tic device, after all, breaking the tic tic tic clock will stop time to flow but we will feel nothing and continue living younger forever... according to relativity...

2 Replies

@cameronleon,

Thankyou for confirming that you are a complete moron as far as science is concerned. You selectively quote snippets which suit your purpose just like you quote 'holy writ'. Its a prostitution of the intellect, albeit a limited one.

I therefore suggest you throw away any satnav equipment you have, because it requires relativity theory to operate. Even better, to save yourself further embarrassment, throw away your computer, because the quantum electrodynamics behind that is even more problematic than relativity as far your lay concept of 'science' is concerned.

1 Reply

@cameronleon,

BTW I am one of the few atheists round here who requires no 'empirical demonstration of the existence of God'. Since 'God' is a concept like any other, it stands or falls on the basis of its utlility, and that is as far as we can get as fas as 'existence' of anything is concerned. So 'time' is useful to us both, whereas 'God' is only useful to theists. 'Physicality' may or may not add to judgement of utility, but we must bear in mind that 'physicality' is itself only another concept based on our particular species physiology.

I realise that the above is likely to fall on religiously deformed ears, but I re-iterate it anyway for the consideration of fellow atheists.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Well stated.

0 Replies

Is time linear?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know