What the heck is Time?

Discussions on classical and modern physics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, etc.

Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby hyksos on January 21st, 2017, 7:31 am 

Braininvat » January 14th, 2017, 12:14 am wrote:Yes, my post would have made more sense if I added that that thread started out in physics. (Which sorta explains all the veering, I guess)

The other thread on this topic has died out, and I have the last post sitting in it. I don't want to double-dip that thread. Also I am hoping that rajnz00 sees this post eventually -- and sees the accompanying thread.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32309
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: You're it!

Postby Faradave on January 21st, 2017, 12:26 pm 

The surest way to get a member's attention is to tag him/her like this, rajnz00. But life can be busy, so there are no guarantees.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1825
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: You're it!

Postby ronjanec on January 21st, 2017, 12:52 pm 

Faradave » Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:26 am wrote:The surest way to get a member's attention is to tag him/her like this, rajnz00. But life can be busy, so there are no guarantees.


"How did he do dat?" Dave, I had to ask my professor sister how you were able to post such fantastic personal charts and graphs here on the forum to explain your personal posts: When I again try to explain some of my posts here on the forum, are you available for hire Doc? Never mind, I'm sure I could not afford you :)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Picture Perfect

Postby Faradave on January 21st, 2017, 1:40 pm 

ronjanec wrote:"How did he do dat?"


Thanks! Being an essentially mathless crank, I've had to compensate by honing my illustration skills. I use the Draw feature of MS-Word most often but that took considerable trial & error (and I'm still learning).

If I were you, I'd simply draw on a piece of paper, then post a photo of that. You need to know the file name and where it's stored on your computer. Then in full edit mode, select the "Upload attachment" tab below the edit window and follow directions. If the photo is too big, try cropping it in your photo editor first.

In any case, you seem pretty good at getting your points across verbally.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1825
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Picture Perfect

Postby ronjanec on January 21st, 2017, 3:05 pm 

Faradave » Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:40 am wrote:
ronjanec wrote:"How did he do dat?"


Thanks! Being an essentially mathless crank, I've had to compensate by honing my illustration skills. I use the Draw feature of MS-Word most often but that took considerable trial & error (and I'm still learning).

If I were you, I'd simply draw on a piece of paper, then post a photo of that. You need to know the file name and where it's stored on your computer. Then in full edit mode, select the "Upload attachment" tab below the edit window and follow directions. If the photo is too big, try cropping it in your photo editor first.

In any case, you seem pretty good at getting your points across verbally.


Thanks Dave, but I am only using an iPad Air nowadays: So even someone like myself can't screw up the updates, get viruses etc.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4445
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ralfcis on January 22nd, 2017, 7:44 am 

Dave,
I've thought of another analogy to help you understand what I've been saying but first a little side story.

I believe in the old days method of schoolin' where you hit people with a stick to get them out of their own heads. It gets their attention and a pupil is not likely to forget a lesson he learned in pain. However, that method is widely frowned upon, especially at my place of work, despite its fantastic results. There is no reward or recognition for schoolin' people anymore. In fact I've been schooled with a big stick for using a big stick and I'd be a hypocrite if I said it's still not the best way of learning a hard lesson even when it's applied to me. So I'm going to try to be respectful and helpful instead.

In the Star Trek episode "Wink of an Eye" humanoids get time accelerated by drinking Scalosian water. Please I don't want this thread to veer off into a Star Trek discussion because I know how old people like to go on and on with their reminiscences. Oops, anyway, the Scalosians do not get to the future any faster, they themselves move in fast motion and can cover more distance and can get a lot more done in the same time span as the Enterprise crew do in slow motion. Both the crew and the Scalosians age at the same rate, despite the Scalosians accelerated time, until a reckoning comes when one of the Scalosians is scratched; he suddenly ages very rapidly as he re-enters the Enterprise time-frame. This is not relativity but it is a good analogy of how time can move faster or slower without going into the past or future and how relative aging occurs under certain circumstances.

Relativity is THE battleground for the discussion of time. You start going off into philosophy or dark matter or new unproven theories of quantum physics to explain time then you're engaging in mysteries to explain a mystery. The logic behind people who do that is. "Well that's a mystery and this is a mystery so the two MUST be completely related." Relativity offers hard facts about the nature of time and I believe if you don't understand relativity then you need to before you can engage in a discussion of time. If you can identify which parts of my Star Trek story connect to which parts of relativity and why, then you will have understood relativity.
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 946
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 22nd, 2017, 7:45 pm 

Hi ralfcis,

ralfcis wrote:Both the crew and the Scalosians age at the same rate,

If a Scalosian wore a watch, would it show their Accelerated Biology or match Captain Kirk's watch?

If the quote above is true, then they either die earlier of old age or live longer than Kirk. If a Scalosian's watch matches Kirk's watch, then their Biology is Accelerated and their view of the world would be in deep infra-red and it would take super human strength to move an object, including their own Mass. They would have to consume food for energy at an accelerated rate too, to support their Accelerated energy expenditure. They couldn't even breath the same air as Kirk, as air would become thicker than water for them.

Anyway, using a Science Fiction Movie to make your point is fraught with dozens of Paradoxes. So let's keep it real.

There are two classes of Relativists: Classical and Absolute. The Classical ones employ very complex math to View Clock Dilation's, and Absolutists that see all velocities are tied to Light Speed. In my view, the Classical Relativists are being ushered into the corner with the Earth-Centrist folks. These guys resist the idea of Absolute Velocity and choose a rather complicated form of Math to avoid such.. not unlike the epicycles of Earth-Centrist mathematics. The Absolutists are like the Galilean view of the Sun at the Center of the Solar System in that they support the concept that all Velocities are absolute and independent from all other objects of Mass. A much more simple view.

Meaning your clocks will dilate a specific amount based on absolute speed, regardless of how fast anything else is moving. They (classical) will deny Absolute Speeds exist.. despite all such Math ultimately breaks down into absolute speeds anyway, unless you can live with Paradoxes like the Twin Paradox.

We make clocks to Measure Real Time of the Universe. Sadly, such clocks are prone to Dilation due to their Absolute Velocity. The GPS system didn't work right out of the box as Classical Relativists assumed it would. It didn't take into account that Earth Clocks and Orbital Clocks are operating further up the Lorentz Scale due to the Solar System's absolute velocity through the Universe. Thanks to the CMB, we now know our Absolute Speed and why the math had to be kludged to work properly. The Engineers had to kludge the Math due to pressure from the Military to make deadlines and get a working system in place. This information was published in Science Publications at the time of development (which I remember clearly) but such information is almost impossible to find today. So take this last paragraph with a grain of salt, but it shouldn't be that hard for a Mathematician to Spot the kluge factor (constant) applied in the Equation to make the GPS system work correctly. (subtle compensation for the solar system velocity)

I even designed a dog collar using GPS for owners to locate their runaway dogs. It's all bundled inside easy to use chips today, but at that time was not a cost effective product and was abandoned. Lot's of other issues including using Cellphone technology to communicate with the collar made it too expensive at that time.

Anyway, the experimental evidence that Clock Dilation is Real is a bit overwhelming. I see a line being drawn between Classical Relativists and Absolute Relativists (I'm the latter) today. I predict the Absolutists will win when the dust settles. The difference between the two views is very subtle at ordinary speeds, but becomes much more profound as we move upwards on the Velocity Scale, as I have showed previously.

It seems that you deny that people/clocks age at different rates, even when their absolute speeds, Relative to Light, are constant but different. Is this statement accurate?

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ralfcis on January 23rd, 2017, 5:25 am 

The answers to your questions are:

Kirk's watch, die earlier, no, as Spock would say, "illogical", whatever, I doubt it, no and no, no, simple as in wrong, totally false, nope, uh uh, wow, false, fairy tale, doesn't exist, whatever, no, no chance, hearsay, not at all, no.
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 946
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby hyksos on January 23rd, 2017, 10:12 am 

In a Universe where everything is moving at potentially different Velocities then the only Anchor that Einstein and Company could use for a constant reference is Light Speed. Thus: all speeds from 0 to c must be Relative to Light Speed.

This paragraph is both academically incorrect and historically inaccurate.

Just knowing the Differential Speed between two objects is insufficient information to compute their Clock Differential simply because the Lorentz Equation is Non-Linear.

The motion of the solar system around the center of the milky way is not needed to compute time dilation in GPS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
TheVat liked this post


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 23rd, 2017, 6:31 pm 

Hi Hyksos,

You are both wrong and right.. let explain.

Our velocity around the Galaxy is only about 12 Miles per second. But using the CMB as a back ground frame we find our actual velocity through space is actually 389.599 Mps when we include the speed of our Galaxy through space.

We see this in the CMB by red/blue-shift:

CMB_Dipole.png
CMB red/blue shift differential.

Clock Dilation is based on absolute velocity (ignoring Gravity).

Clocks don't care what other clocks are doing.

This makes dilation factors of:
12 Mps = 1.0000000020748603 (speed around the Galaxy)
389.599 Mps = 1.0000021870821945 (speed through the Universe)

In other words light is about 478 times faster than our true Velocity.

This will push us up a bit further on the Lorentz Scale:

Time_dilation.svg.png

But, the difference at the low end of the Lorentz Scale is almost negligible. On the other hand, we have to maintain GPS clock accuracy to within Nanoseconds per day. We update GPS clocks and positions on a regular basis from ground based standards and trackers. This alone pretty much preempts any concern about accumulative clock dilation differentials.

So I must retract my opinion that the Math has such compensation built into it. With regular updates to the GPS satellites, my point become pretty much moot.

As far as Einstien is concerned:

Wiki wrote:In 1905 Einstein postulated from the outset that the speed of light in vacuum, measured by a non-accelerating observer, is independent of the motion of the source or observer. Using this and the principle of relativity as a basis he derived the special theory of relativity, in which the speed of light in vacuum c featured as a fundamental constant, also appearing in contexts unrelated to light. This made the concept of the stationary aether (to which Lorentz and Poincaré still adhered) useless and revolutionized the concepts of space and time.

Thus what followed was an explanation of why M&M experiments failed and Space-Time became a new label for the Aether in GR.

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics wrote:It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

Our tools for measuring our Velocity through this Aether are improving. I have suggested another conceptual tool I call the "Light-Tube".

See.. a flash in a vacuum radiates at the speed of light and its energy strength is reduced as the square of the distance. Space ships do not carry their own Aether inside them like some sort of atmosphere. Space ships propagate through the Aether. Thus a flash inside a space ship will radiate outwards independent of the ships speed as it would if the flash were outside the space ship.

This means that a photo sensor placed a few yards in front of a flash will register a lower energy level than a sensor will read behind the flash source, due to the Geometry of the spherical radiation transmission.

Thus a Black Tube (to absorb ambient reflected light) with a flasher in the center and surface area photo sensors at each far end must read an energy difference if that tube has motion along its pointing axis. This form of measurement doesn't care about clock dilation or frequency shifts inside its moving frame of reference.

You can't avoid energy dissipation due to expansion of a radiated flash. It totally relies on the speed of light being a constant in a vacuum, regardless of the speed of the source of that light.

Now I can't predict how sensitive this velocity tool would be in practice because I don't know how sensitive we can make photo sensors today. But we should see a differential and we have the means to electronically amplify differentials a really great deal.

Ok, I have to get back to work.. fun as this all is.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby Inchworm on January 30th, 2017, 10:26 am 

Dave wrote:This means that a photo sensor placed a few yards in front of a flash will register a lower energy level than a sensor will read behind the flash source, due to the Geometry of the spherical radiation transmission.
I think so too, unless the speed is too low to be detected. But this means that, in the light clock mind experiment, to be reflected, light has to be aimed in the direction of the future position of the mirrors, which contradicts the idea that the clock will slow down just because its motion is relative. You think it will nevertheless slow down, but I can't imagine the mechanism. There will be blueshift and direction shift at the source, but redshift and aberration at the observer would simply avoid any measurement to be made. Can intensity of radiation slow down clocks?
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 30th, 2017, 1:33 pm 

Hi Inchworm,

Jorrie pointed out that the light source and light receiver(s) are in the Same Frame and thus don't observe a frequency shift or color change. My first light tube was based on Frequency and was a bust. That's when I realized that light must expand in a radial fashion and thus, from the moment of flash, that flash has to reach both ends of the tube at different times, if the tube is in motion. I'm exploiting the One-Way Speed of Light (in a fashion).

However, given the constant speed of light, it will take longer to reach the Front Sensor than the Rear Sensor if the whole tube is moving towards the front. In that time period light will have radially expanded (having traveled a greater distance) and thus be weaker on the front sensor (moving away from the source) than the rear sensor (moving towards the flash). It does need to be a radial flash as a focused laser probably would desensitize the effect.

With this method, I don't need to time anything.. but just compare peak energy samples gathered per flash.

Again, the logic seems sound, but I have no idea what the bottom speed limit would be based on unknown sensor sensitivity.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby TheVat on January 30th, 2017, 2:33 pm 

However, given the constant speed of light, it will take longer to reach the Front Sensor than the Rear Sensor if the whole tube is moving towards the front...
- DaveO

The tube is a single local frame of reference and there is no relative motion between sensors and emitter. There will be no difference in time for either path, if the sensors are the same distance from the emitter. The tube's motion through space, through the CMBR, is irrelevant. I predict the experiment would show zero difference between the sensors, both in terms of frequency and time interval.
User avatar
TheVat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 7137
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby Inchworm on January 30th, 2017, 2:54 pm 

Dave wrote:I'm exploiting the One-Way Speed of Light (in a fashion).
One way speed of light is like its one way direction, both are impossible to observe for an observer traveling side by side with the source. But your idea to use intensity works for both: if source and observer travel sideways to their motion, light will also travel more distance between them because it will have to travel as in the light clock mind experiment. If light is considered as a wave, then its intensity should decrease, and if it is considered as a particle, then there should be less photons at the receiver than at the source. But you did not answer my question about time dilation: you seem to believe it would still be observable, so how do you explain it?
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby Inchworm on January 30th, 2017, 2:57 pm 

Braininvat » January 30th, 2017, 2:33 pm wrote:The tube is a single local frame of reference and there is no relative motion between sensors and emitter. There will be no difference in time for either path, if the sensors are the same distance from the emitter. The tube's motion through space, through the CMBR, is irrelevant. I predict the experiment would show zero difference between the sensors, both in terms of frequency and time interval.
Dave was suggesting that we measure the intensity of light, not its frequency or its time interval.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 604
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby mitchellmckain on January 30th, 2017, 6:19 pm 

hyksos » January 23rd, 2017, 9:12 am wrote:
In a Universe where everything is moving at potentially different Velocities then the only Anchor that Einstein and Company could use for a constant reference is Light Speed. Thus: all speeds from 0 to c must be Relative to Light Speed.

This paragraph is both academically incorrect and historically inaccurate.


Correct! It is total and complete nonsense!

You can measure a velocity relative to any inertial frame but the speed of light does not represent any inertial frame. It makes no sense whatsoever to talk a about light speed as a reference or a speed being relative to light speed. It is nonsensical. How can a speed be relative to something which is unchanging. The speed of light remains the same in every inertial frame unchanged no matter what speed you travel at.

However, what can do is use the speed of light as a unit of measurement for not only speed (magnitude of velocity) but also connect the measures of time and distance. So for example...

1. You can measure the velocity of an object (call it A) coming towards or away from your position at some percentage of the speed of light. But this is not a measure of speed relative to light but a measure of velocity relative to your own velocity. If you were traveling at a different velocity then how you measure the velocity of this object A would be completely different. But if you measured the velocity of light in both cases you would get the same magnitude which means the difference between the velocity of object A and the velocity of light has changed. Thus saying speed is measured relative to light is just WRONG!

2. The distance to the sun is 499 light seconds. This means it takes 499 seconds for light to travel from the sun to the earth. However the measure of distance is not the same in all inertial frames so this would not be the same for someone traveling at relativistic speeds relative to the earth.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 30th, 2017, 9:48 pm 

Hi Biv,

Biv wrote:I predict the experiment would show zero difference between the sensors, both in terms of frequency and time interval.

I totally agree, but as inchworm pointed out.. I was referring to light intensity.

If you measure the speed of light with a rod, a mirror on one end and a flash lamp and sensor-timer at the other end.. then you always get a constant because you are measuring the two-way speed of light. If you are in motion towards the mirror and set off a flash, the distance the light has to travel to the mirror is greater than the return distance. So, take the round trip time and divide by 2 and you get the speed of light, regardless of your speed.

Jorrie and I already talked about Frequencies and Time.. both are a constant in the whole frame.

But..
1. The speed of light is not additive to the speed of the source of that light.
2. Light will do a radial expansion and lose intensity over distance very rapidly.

Thus a flash will have to travel a greater distance to the front sensor than to the rear sensor, if the whole is in motion towards the front. Since the flash had to travel a greater distance to the front sensor than the back sensor, then there should be an intensity differential. Thus I am measuring the intensity difference for one-way light travel.

mitchellmckain:

Light, by convention, travels at about 300,000 Kps in flat space and vacuum.
If I have a race with light but can only travel half the distance to a given target that light has reached from a mutual starting line, then my speed must be about 150,000 Kps. Or 50% of Light Speed or 0.5 c.
Thus, my speed at 0.5 c (150,000 Kps) would be Relative to Light Speed, wouldn't it?

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ralfcis on January 31st, 2017, 5:15 am 

I'm just wondering. If atomic clocks have an accuracy to 1 sec per million years or so, why does the GPS grid need to be resync'd every week. I doubt it's because of speed variations or gravitational field variations or speed variations relative to the CMB. So why?
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 946
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 31st, 2017, 3:43 pm 

Hi ralfcis,

As best as I can understand all the available documents from GPS.gov, the clocks on any GPS satellite are never changed.. as like a clock pendulum, they just keep ticking away at a Relativistic constant rate. Every 24 hours (but can be as little as 8 hours) an almanac is sent, which is essentially a schedule for gradual change. The time reported from a GPS Satellite never jumps suddenly.. that could mess up your navigation here on Earth.

The Almanac contains a schedule for very gradual change over a given period. The Ticks from the atomic clocks on-board each satellite are counted with high accuracy with very high resolution. Then a schedule is followed that adds or subtracts an extremely small fraction to the total tick count over the next 24 hours. At the end of each 24 hour schedule-period the GPS Satellite clock is evaluated by Earth based control and the next schedule is uploaded to the Satellites for over-under run adjustments from the previous schedule.

The same is done with Positional information but needs more frequent adjustments and I'm pretty sure it is done on a 2 hour schedule.

In both cases for Time and Position, it is done this way to prevent sudden jumps in what you receive here on Earth from said Satellites (which could be confusing if they are allowed to jump suddenly).

Part of the reasons for this is Satellite Drift during ones 12 hour orbit and the fact that Satellite Clocks are prone to Relativistic effects from Earths Gravity, which is not homogeneous. Ie: The Earth is not a perfect sphere and Gravity is dependent on nearest Mass Density, which varies a bit from location to location here on Earth.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/04/110406-new-map-earth-gravity-geoid-goce-esa-nasa-science/

Timeline:
Please go to this location (click link below):
http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=32187
Put your posts there for evaluation and discussion. This is the Physics Forum and Science already has its definition of Time, even if we think it is wrong (like I do). Clock Dilation and Universal Time has already been addressed in this thread. Since then.. this thread has drifted into Relativity (partially my fault too).
Honestly, many of us are not following Forum Rules and sticking to the OP in tackling Time per definition by Science. But Relativity is an aspect of Time.. so the Thread hasn't been closed or moved just yet.

Classical Relativity holds that one can not discern ones Velocity within an enclosed Inertial Frame. I follow a newer branch of Relativists that prefer Absolutes and have offered my Light-Tube as evidence against Classical views, among several other points of contention already addressed, such as CMB measurements etc.

Anyway.. this thread has already gotten rather mangled.. and may be closed soon. So.. again.. please put your ideas at the link I provided above for active debate etc. I'm personally trying to disengage from this thread before it gets bumped to Personal Theories.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby hyksos on February 1st, 2017, 9:14 am 

User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby hyksos on February 4th, 2017, 5:58 pm 

User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby Dave_Oblad on February 4th, 2017, 7:41 pm 

Hi Hyksos,

Per the video just above.. there is a horrendous flaw starting at 4:40.

It shows the same traveler taking different paths.. that's fine.

But it stops short.. of showing that the guy that departed from the same path is falling back in time.. should not be able to rejoin the original on the North Road, as the Deviant has fallen behind.. into the past.

Truth: If the Westward version guy changed over to Eastward, then at the point of intersection with the Original North bound version, they would recombine/meet simultaneously. Both traveled North the exact same amount of Real Temporal Distance!

This means that both had the same Universal Time but the version that deviated from the North bound Version merely had a slower clock and aged less.

Obviously, if the Video was correct, the Deviant would never be able to catch up with the Original, unless the Original stopped, or Froze in Time, waiting for the Deviant to catch up with him. Very convenient that the demo doesn't take it to the logical conclusion.. thus proving itself wrong.

Reality doesn't work that way!

It's about Time we separate Real Time from what clocks measure.

Clocks don't measure Real Time. (they measure clock/energy deviations by speed differences)

Note: the next Demo of Brian approaching the guy on the bench didn't fall into the past, but was able to meet and greet the bench guy, both arriving at the same temporal moment simultaneously. Brian didn't fall back in time.. Brian's watch slowed down is all that happened. Both the Bench fellow and Brian proceeded through Time at the exact same rate, but with differing watches.

Keep this in mind when watching the rest of this nonsense.

Ok.. watched the rest of the video.. kinda gets back on track near the end. But conflicts with the slicing of bread aspect. A straight 90' slice (90' relative to the direction of Time) catches all objects in the Universe at a slice of simultaneity. The blade isn't crooked.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby BurtJordaan on February 5th, 2017, 1:17 am 

Hi Dave,

Brian Greene did not say anything fundamentally wrong in that video, he have just left a few things unsaid...
Like that the tracks of two cars traveling on earth's surface are not spacetime paths, or that the clocks of the two men approaching each other were both recording one second per second of their own individual times. They just covered different spacetime paths and hence their clocks will not agree on the elapsed time...

Dave_O wrote:It's about Time we separate Real Time from what clocks measure.

Clocks don't measure Real Time. (they measure clock/energy deviations by speed differences)

It's about time that we abolish the term "real time" from relativity discussions, because it does not feature there. It works in computer science and it may work in philosophy, but not in the "hard sciences".

The correct and properly defined term in science is proper time. And it IS what clocks measure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time1 wrote:In relativity, proper time along a timelike world line is defined as the time as measured by a clock following that line. It is thus independent of coordinates, and a Lorentz scalar. The proper time interval between two events on a world line is the change in proper time.

I guess if you guys ignore this point, the thread should go to the philosophy of science section... ;-)
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2595
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby Dave_Oblad on February 5th, 2017, 3:21 am 

Hi Jorrie,

Welcome back.

Jorrie wrote:They just covered different spacetime paths and hence their clocks will not agree on the elapsed time...

You are Exactly correct! Proper Time is fine for observing Clock Dilation. But the simple fact is this:

Despite what their clocks are telling them about their Proper Time.. Real Time tells us that Both will reach the same exact moment "Tomorrow" Simultaneously. Both will agree that they started Simultaneously Yesterday.. Both will agree that Time has elapsed and their respective trips took a non-zero quantity of Time to complete.

And both must realize that when they leave each others company (on separate journeys) Simultaneously and arrive at their agreed upon mutual destination, further ahead in Time, Simultaneously.. that the difference between the beginning and end of their journeys was Real Time, despite their individual clocks being in disagreement over elapsed, or Proper, Time.


The critical distinction being the definition of what physical "Time" actually is.

Both travelers experience the same exact number of Planck Intervals on such a Journey, but the evolution of Matter/Energy is different for different absolute speeds. Thus clocks dilate by absolute Motion (velocity) through Space and thus do not measure Real Time.

My Centrifuge/Clock experiment proves my point and the Twin Paradox proves that Proper Time is inadequate for describing Reality. Classical Relativity can't be choosy on which Traveler is actually moving faster, but choice does make a difference.

The Earth Centrist View proved itself by its predictive power. Relative Proper Time proves itself in the same manner. But the Absolute Truth is the Solar Centrist View and the Absolute Real Time view. The Retrograde motion of Planets, while predicted and observable, was still a false view of Reality. The "Twin Paradox" is the "Retrograde Motion" thorn in Classical Relativity. Planets don't back up and Clocks don't measure Real Physical Time.

Jorrie.. isn't it about Time (pun intended) that you switch sides from Classical Relativity to Absolute Relativity? Or you can refuse to face the absolute logic and move this Thread to Personal Theories and commit the same crime perpetrated on Galileo by the Church and suppress real progress on our view of Reality.

I'll understand how it would make life more simple for you to suppress my points and lock me up like poor Galileo, who had to wait for Canon Science to realize their mistake.

But like the Solar Centrist folks, Absolute Relativity will be the chosen View by General Science in the very near future. I just hope to see it before I die, unlike poor Galileo.

Please note I am not debating that Classical Relativity works by the math (ignoring the Twin Paradox.. lol). I am saying that Absolute Relativity works better and no Paradoxes exist in it. It is a simpler Model of Reality, just like the Solar Centrist View.

The difference is how we view Physical Time and why Clocks Dilate due to their Absolute individual Velocity.

So you have 3 choices as I see it.

1. Switch sides and become an Absolute Relativist (like me).
2. Defend Classical Relativity (role up you sleeves and prepare for a logical fight).
3. Suppress/Move this Thread and lock up Galileo (I mean me).

I hesitate to suggest #2 above as we have debated before. You use Math and I use Logic.. and neither will give in to the others view. The war rages on.. lol.

But truthfully, in the long run, Absolute Relativity will claim ultimate victory and Galileo (me) was Exonerated eventually.

Ps. A 4th option exists. Leave this thread where it is and lock it. Let future historians be the judge and save us both a lot of Time.. which I have little of.. I'm super busy at the moment working towards my retirement real soon.

Highest Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby BurtJordaan on February 5th, 2017, 5:12 am 

Hi Dave, I'm grudgingly drawn into this again, simply because it still sits under Physics - as you well know, not just anything goes here!

Dave_Oblad » 05 Feb 2017, 09:21 wrote:My Centrifuge/Clock experiment proves my point and the Twin Paradox proves that Proper Time is inadequate for describing Reality.

There must then exist some form of "Dave_O Reality" that other persons do not understand?

I thought that we have agreed before that your 'centrifuge experiment' does not logically demonstrate what you claim. And that the "twin paradox" is not paradoxical at all - just people misrepresenting what it says. I do not have the references to those discussions at hand, so perhaps you can summarize/copy your point here so that we can look at it in context again? It will be very hard to go through all those lengthy threads...

Or better still, since it is somewhat off-topic here, why not start a new Physics thread like "Why not Absolute Relativity?" and let's get the logic and the physics straight there.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2595
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby hyksos on February 5th, 2017, 2:45 pm 

I would have preferred to have linked the video starting at around minute 20:00 That's the most important part. But such is the nature of the internet and youtube. The fundamental point to take away is that an observer in motion may experience a local "now" which contains within it a portion of a distant observer's future. We can fight against this conclusion with all our hearts, and feel deeply to our bones that it must be wrong. But it is indeed a prediction of Special Relativity, whether we like it or not. Unlike some statements (that are about to be quoted) these claims are authoritative and exist in modern textbooks.

As others have said, this is the Physics section of this forum.
physicssection.png




Dave_Oblad » February 5th, 2017, 11:21 am wrote:But like the Solar Centrist folks, Absolute Relativity will be the chosen View by General Science in the very near future. I just hope to see it before I die, unlike poor Galileo.

But truthfully, in the long run, Absolute Relativity will claim ultimate victory and Galileo (me) was Exonerated eventually.

This kind of verbiage is very dangerous, particularly when placed in a forum that might have random passersby coming and going. The reason is it dangerous is that it makes it seem like there is a whole population of active physicists in academia who are working on a theory called "Absolute Relativity". And that this new groundbreaking theory is on the verge of being accepted by the theoretical physics community at large.

To the best of my understanding, "Absolute Relativity" is the sole creation of a single guy on the internet, who posts on this forum. It does not appear in books nor on blogs outside this forum, and is not recognized by academia. If I am wrong in this claim, I would prefer someone other than Dave_Oblad to tell me that it is a valid alternative theory held by many active physicists. And that person (who is not Dave_Oblad) should ask me to check out a number of various links to "the literature" on the theory.

I have a suspicion this isn't going to actually happen -- but maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. Who knows.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby ralfcis on February 5th, 2017, 6:58 pm 

Dave,
If you can answer this question, both in what relative and your absolute relativity says, I'll see what point you're trying to make. Two ships are 3ly away from earth at space stations that have atomic clocks synced to earth time. They've agreed beforehand to start towards earth at the same time and at 1/3 c relative to the earth. What is their relative speed to each other?

For extra points, What is their time dilation relative to earth and what is their time dilation relative to each other? How much has each aged relatively to earth time and to each other? Has the earth's movement made any significant difference to the outcome? Will there be any significant difference in any of the results if they start their journey relatively to each other anywhere on the 3ly circumference from earth.

Now if you don't know these answers then you don't know enough about relativity to say you disagree with it.
ralfcis
Banned User
 
Posts: 946
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby Dave_Oblad on February 5th, 2017, 7:54 pm 

Hi Hyksos,

First of all, All Classical Relativists are Absolute Relativists but won't admit to it. Relativity only works on Paper and absolutely correct answers to relativity problems only exist with absolute values inserted into the problem.

Take for example the Twin Paradox. Alice stays stationary and Bob (leaving Alice) does a journey at 0.86c out and back. For simplicity we will remove Acceleration's/Deceleration's, Gravity and Doppler Effects. This should be a pretty standard problem. Also, though not super accurate, we will assume 0.86c is relative to Alice and the 0.86c is a dilation factor of 2. (actually for a factor of 2 Bobs speed must be 0.8660254037844386c but I'm rounding out.)

Thus, when Bob returns, his clocks will show that his journey has only taken half the time that Alice's clock will indicate his journey has taken. This is a typical simple Relativity problem and note.. it uses Absolutes.

We also note that Relativity Voids itself if either party obviously exceeds Light Speed and again.. another Absolute. Many times Alice will be on a Spaceship or Planet. Does the intrinsic speed of that Spaceship or Planet matter? Not really.. for round trips.. as long as no one ever exceeds Light Speed in the problem.

If Alice has some intrinsic speed toward some stationary point in space then Bob's Direction means his clocks will be running faster or slower than Alice's clocks dependent on his direction. But the return trip for Bob to Alice makes up for gains or losses in his clocks and Relativity works just fine.

So, in most cases Relativity works fine and problems can ignore Alice's intrinsic Velocity through Space-Time.

Here's the catch:
If Alice & Bob are together and are already traveling at 0.86c towards some fixed point in space ahead then can Bob launch at a right angle from their current direction moving at 0.86c away from to Alice?

Classical Relativists have grown so accustomed to Ignoring Alice's intrinsic Speed through Space, that they have no problem seeing Bob heading out away from Alice at 0.86c at a right angle to her direction. Absolute Relativists will point out the Bob's Speed through Space will describe a path that exceeds Light Speed.
Example Below:

AliceBob.jpg
Pythagorean Example

As can be seen above, Bob has traveled a path of 364,867 Kilometers in the distance that Alice has traveled 258,000 Kilometers. Please note that to Scale: Bob is traveling faster than Light Speed and that is forbidden.

Now.. Classical Relativists might attempt to obfuscate this problem by bringing in clocks. I'm laying out this problem using a Grid that has zero velocity relative to the CMB and Light Speed distances relative to said stationary grid in flat space.

That is the fundamental difference between Classical Relativists and Absolute Relativists. Classical Relativists only see the Relative motion between Objects and Absolute Relativists see Absolute Motions Relative to the Background of Physical Space. As long as we keep all Speeds under Light Speed, both should get the same answers. If they don't, I'll lean towards Absolutism.

Absolutists don't see the Twin Paradox as a Paradox, it is just a matter of which party has moved through the longest distance in the same amount of Time. The Paradox comes about if one only looks at their Speed Differential and gives both equal footing as being called the Stationary one.. then the Math doesn't fit Reality.

So in essence Classical Relativists are Absolute Relativists, in that they give their problems using Absolute Speeds. It's the pretense that the background Aether doesn't matter that can (and does) cause problems. As pointed out above, ignoring Absolute speeds Relative to the Aether and assuming all one needs is differential Speeds is Invalid. Like the Two-Way Speed of light is a constant, I suspect the Two-Way calculations for Clock Dilation's also work (as long as Absolute Light Speed is not exceeded).

This was Einsteins Greatest Blunder BTW. Not the Cosmological Constant as we are taught but rather Special Relativity. By trying to remove the Aether.. Einstein lost a foundation to proceed into deeper Physics. SR doesn't work in Reality. Einstein came to realize this mistake and corrected this Error with General Relativity and re-installed an Aether that he called Space-Time. You need a Foundation or nothing makes sense.

In Brian Green's Video above, the end of his presentation introduces the Block Model and treats Time, or the Passage of Time, as an Illusion. This is only true if one steps outside the Universe and see's the whole. We can't actually do this, as we are trapped within the Evolution of Time. From Inside the Universe, the past and present exists, but a moment from now doesn't Exist yet. Even if the Universe was completely deterministic and the Future can only have one way to play out, the Future doesn't exist yet.. from an inside View. Thus the Passage of Time is NOT an Illusion when viewed from inside our Reality.

Thus I prefer the Expanding Block Model to fit our perspective.

Richard Muller (a Physicist) offers an explanation for the Arrow of Time. That the Expansion of the Universe is adding New 4D Space-Time on the surface of a 4D construct. Our conscious perception of Now is because we are evolving/progressing into the New Space-Time being supplied.. thus we progress into New 3D Space and this progression has Time. Put another way, if the Universe stopped adding New Space-Time, then Time would literally stop for us. Or, we perceive the Flow of Time by being on the leading edge of the Expanding Block Model. That the Expansion of the Universe is adding New Space and also adding New Time.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.07975

Ok, I'm getting tired now.. calling it quits for the day. I see Ralfcis has contributed with a Math Challenge. I don't have the time at the moment, but I am curious if Classical Relativity really produces the same answers as Absolute Relativity (assuming no one exceeds light speed). I'm thinking it will.. but I will have to postpone the challenge for later.. and yes.. I can do the Math.. but I prefer to put it into a computer program format for ease of multiple tests and perhaps adding some automatic Graphs.

Later all,

Best Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby hyksos on February 5th, 2017, 8:46 pm 

This was Einsteins Greatest Blunder BTW. Not the Cosmological Constant as we are taught but rather Special Relativity. By trying to remove the Aether.. Einstein lost a foundation to proceed into deeper Physics. SR doesn't work in Reality. Einstein came to realize this mistake and corrected this Error with General Relativity and re-installed an Aether that he called Space-Time. You need a Foundation or nothing makes sense.

{Incredulity Intensifies}
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: What the heck is Time?

Postby TheVat on February 5th, 2017, 9:46 pm 

If I were Alice and Bob, I'd flee for my life. I'd also be a hermaphrodite with 2 first names, but that's another whole thread.

Dave, I wish you would stop calling spacetime "aether." It seems so misleading. Absolute relativity is an oxymoron. And belongs in Personal Theories.
User avatar
TheVat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 7137
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


PreviousNext

Return to Physics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests