## What is spacetime made of?

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

### Re: What is spacetime made of?

Ron, did you read my last post to you? I would enjoy hearing your response to the specific points I made, and if the Karl Popper analogy would be useful in getting at the precise meaning of "time" in science. I also thought David M.'s comment on the relational nature of the concept of time was very clearly written and might be helpful to you. And deserving of an answer, if you can. Time and space are human language terms that are used, and also represented mathematically, to describe relationships between events, objects, and so on. (this is also what Popper was getting at when he said that natural numbers aren't "things.") Relations between things, even if they are not physically substantial, are real - and we cannot know our world without understanding them.

Numeracy, order, cardinality, causality, space, time - all aspects of our reality.

TheVat

Posts: 7059
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

### Re: What is spacetime made of?

ronjanec » September 10th, 2018, 9:24 am wrote:You said “clocks measure time”, and you meant this literally;

No. This is just your persistent refusal to understand what we are showing you.

Clocks measure time. Rulers measure distance.

Here is what this means in relativity (although this has been explained repeatedly, let’s try again).

We have a frame in motion with respect to an at-rest frame. From the point of view of the rest frame, all physical processes have slowed, including clock ticks, in the moving frame. That just IS time dilation. Full stop.

From the point of view of the rest frame, the width of the moving frame, and everything inside of it, including people and clocks, contract in the direction of motion. This just IS length contraction. Full stop.

Do you see anything in the above about a “thing” or “substance” called time or space? In the above, measurement simply means, processes slowing down, and objects contracting. No “substance” called time or space is present, at all.

Indeed, if there were a thing or substance called time or space, relativity theory would be wrong.

Of course, if you had looked at the light clock animation I linked you to, you would know all this.

But you didn’t, did you?
davidm
Member

Posts: 545
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

### Re: What is spacetime made of?

When the traveler returns to the rest frame, he will compare his clock, with that of someone who never left the rest frame. Depending on the velocity of the traveler, their clocks will look different. If the traveler moved very fast, the two clocks will be very different. If he did not move so fast, the two clocks may be only slightly different. All of these differences can be worked out quite rigorously mathematically.

It may be, for example, that the traveler’s clock will show that six ticks have elapsed on it, whereas for the stay-at-home person, ten ticks have elapsed on her clock.

“Measurement,” then, means nothing more than the the counting of clock ticks. It does NOT mean measuring some “thing” or “substance” called TIME. And I never said or implied that it did.
davidm
Member

Posts: 545
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

### Re: What is spacetime made of?

Braininvat » Mon Sep 10, 2018 7:48 am wrote:Let's start with Karl Popper: "The natural numbers are the work of men, the product of human language and of human thought."

Now Karl isn't saying that numeracy isn't REAL. He would agree, I think, that a natural number may correspond to a state of affairs in the world. "There are nine hot dogs on the table." Of all the natural numbers, the positive integers seem especially anchored in our mundane sense of numeracy.

Now what if we are referring to a process of physical change in the world? We could paraphrase Karl and say "The minutes are the work of men... " Sure. Suppose we say "It took 15 minutes to cook those hot dogs on the table. " Would you agree that the rate of change, to change a hot dog from uncooked to cooked, is a real aspect of the world? And that, say if we use a certain uniformly made brand of hot dog, the rate of change is fairly constant with respect to other physical changes in the world, like the earth's rotation. 1/96 of a rotation will cook a hot dog. Even if no one were on the planet, this ratio could hold as a valid one regarding physical change. Everyone is Raptured off the earth, and those final pots of hot dogs still take 1/96 of a rotation. We call this sort of state of affairs, which can be numerically described, erm, "time. "

And, if an alien anthropologist studying Terran cookery zooms by at half lightspeed, and is somehow able to watch a pot of hot dogs, there will be a relativistic time dilation such that the hot dogs will cook somewhat more slowly from his perspective , perhaps in 17 minutes instead of 15. (sorry, didn't take time to call up my Lorentz transformation calculator) Again, these numbers and units correspond to a real state of affairs. This is what we mean when we say time is a real phenomenon.

Hope that helps.

Biv,

“Would you agree that the rate of change, to change a hot dog from uncooked to cooked, is a real aspect of the world?” Yes.

“And that, say if we use a certain uniformly made brand of hot dog, the rate of change is fairly constant with respect to other physical changes in the world, like the earth’s rotation”. Again yes.

“there will be a relativistic time dilation such that the hot dogs will cook somewhat more slowly from his perspective, perhaps in 17 minutes instead of 15”?

So the process of cooking the hot dogs from uncooked to cooked would take longer from one reference frame to the another? Ok, let’s assume that this true, and relativity is true;

That does not mean that “time” also or actually moved slower(or time dilation) in one frame of reference here versus the other, because time is again not a distinct physical object of any kind existing anywhere in the universe, and you have to actually be an again distinct physical object of some or any kind to move slower, faster, or even do anything whatsoever.

Would take longer? Or in other words, a larger quantity of existence of duration, or a larger quantity of existence/duration of an event(in this case the process of cooking something). And again, duration and events are not time literally existing somewhere: Time is actually a seperately existing measurement of the same.

With all of this meaning in and of itself, that this discussion did not prove “time dilation” to be true.

Hope that helps. :)
ronjanec
Resident Member

Posts: 4414
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs

### Re: What is spacetime made of?

…and you have to actually be an again distinct physical object of some or any kind to move slower, faster, or even do anything whatsoever.

Yes! We all agree. As has explained to you countless times, in a frame moving relative to an at-rest frame, all distinct PHYSICAL processes SLOW DOWN. That is time dilation — the slowing of all physical processes inside of physical objects.
davidm
Member

Posts: 545
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

### Re: What is spacetime made of?

davidm » Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:48 am wrote:
…and you have to actually be an again distinct physical object of some or any kind to move slower, faster, or even do anything whatsoever.

Yes! We all agree. As has explained to you countless times, in a frame moving relative to an at-rest frame, all distinct PHYSICAL processes SLOW DOWN. That is time dilation — the slowing of all physical processes inside of physical objects.

But time does not actually exist as a distinct PHYSICAL process existing anywhere in the entire universe davidm; So it cannot slow down, or be an example of time dilation, even if many different types of distinct physical processes can(or could) slow down relative to anything else.

And again, time has no distinct PHYSICAL existence of any kind whatsoever existing in the physical universe in any form. So unless time is some kind of non physical/supernatural form of existence, the concept of “time dilation” is an illusion.

If you still disagree with what I’m saying here that time does not actually exist as a distinct physical process of some kind existing anywhere in the universe, then prove it davidm.
ronjanec
Resident Member

Posts: 4414
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs

### Re: What is spacetime made of?

I’ve already proven it. The slowing of all physical processes, including clock ticks, IS TIME DILATION. It is observed all the time. You probably are using a GPS device and don’t even realize it is programmed to take time dilation into account in order to work! Again, did you read my post on this? Did you click on the link I gave to the time dilation/GPS page?

If you don’t like the phrase “time dilation,” you can use the more cumbersome “physical process slowing” or “process dilation" instead. Or not. It’s obvious no one is going to be able to educate you on this, because you prefer not to be.
davidm
Member

Posts: 545
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

### Re: What is spacetime made of?

davidm » Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:43 pm wrote:I’ve already proven it. The slowing of all physical processes, including clock ticks, IS TIME DILATION. It is observed all the time. You probably are using a GPS device and don’t even realize it is programmed to take time dilation into account in order to work! Again, did you read my post on this? Did you click on the link I gave to the time dilation/GPS page?

If you don’t like the phrase “time dilation,” you can use the more cumbersome “physical process slowing” or “process dilation" instead. Or not. It’s obvious no one is going to be able to educate you on this, because you
prefer not to be.

“The slowing of all physical processes, including clock tics IS TIME DILATION”?

Like I just told you in my last post, time does not actually exist as a distinct physical process existing anywhere in the entire universe, or as a distinct physical entity of any kind: because once again, time does not exist anywhere in the universe in any distinct physical form;

And clock tics do not actually represent time in distinct physical form either. Ergo once again: the concept of “time dilation” is an illusion, because time does not exist in any distinct physical object form...anywhere.

You do not understand anything I am saying here do you? You are really wasteing my time...believe whatever you want to.
ronjanec
Resident Member

Posts: 4414
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs

### Re: Objectivity

- optional post, personal model. -

ronjanec wrote:time does not actually exist as a distinct physical process existing anywhere in the entire universe, or as a distinct physical entity of any kind: because once again, time does not exist anywhere in the universe in any distinct physical form

I've already been distracting enough, as one not familiar with metaphysics. But in view of your reliance on the above statement, I would repeat that a temporal field qualifies as an object, though not a material one. It can be modeled as nothing less than the entire 4D continuum, having the Big Bang event as its center.

Though typically presented as Minkowski spacetime (block mode, left), the continuum may be presented as curved-space, radial-time (right) with a 4D temporal field radiating unidirectionally from the singularity of the Big Bang (red dot) and space is any 3D enclosing surface. 2D slices are shown for both models. Spherical spatial enclosures are simultaneities at rest with respect to the Big Bang and consistent with isotropic background radiation. Blue dots are is arbitrary events designated as local origins.

Nevertheless, if you limit "universe" to all space at a given moment (e.g. a simultaneity particular to your rest frame), it is both correct and understandable to say that time does not exist in that universe any more than the radius of a disk "exists" in its circumference.

Active Member

Posts: 1792
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: What is spacetime made of?

ronjanec » September 10th, 2018, 3:51 pm wrote:“which you misunderstood” No, I did not misunderstand your original question in any way shape or form: I answered it (correctly) in exactly the way that it should have been and how it was presented to me. You screwed up by not phrasing your original question properly the first time.

I always phrase my questions carefully. The word "duration" (on its own) commonly denotes a quantity - how long a thing exists - not just its "continued existence". I added "magnitude/extent" the second time in order to clarify this. But you refuse to answer the clarified question - you prefer to make snide personal quibbles.

ronjanec wrote:I have gone through this kind of thing with you a number of times in the past Positor, and I have “called you on the carpet” about this very thing a number of times in the past;

I make a comment, you ask me a question about this: I respond to your question and you never make a comment if I was right about what I just said and you then go on and ask me another question.

There's nothing wrong with asking further questions.

ronjanec wrote:I answer this question and the same thing happens over and over again until you finally just disappear from the thread and never acknowledge if I was right about anything or you were wrong about anything.

If I think you are right about something, I will say so. And if it seems I never say so - well, that should tell you something. You seem to think you have great philosophical insight; you prefer to make the same dogmatic assertions ad nauseam, you do not read people's objections properly, and you become angry when they try to clarify those objections. You are so convinced that you are right that you take it as a personal insult when anyone persists in questioning you. You are more interested in "winning" than in learning.

Of course I will ask follow-up questions; that is how philosophical discussions normally proceed. If everyone has an open mind, the discussion will hopefully give them food for thought, even if they end up agreeing to differ.

ronjanec wrote:The real reason that you are doing this, or even responding to my thread in the first place, is due to the fact you have never been able to prove me wrong about anything in the past, and you are still really pissed off about this, and just keep trying to prove me wrong about something over and over again.

In other words, I am disputing what you say. Sorry to hurt your ego.

ronjanec wrote:Well, hooray and hallelujah Positor! You finally caught me in a mistake! It was again very late at night, and I was really tired when I responded to your post (incorrectly) about you again “not commenting” about my post.

You will of course deny this, but we both know that this is exactly what has been going on here for a number of years Positor. You have not done this to me in quite awhile, and I tried to again respond to you hoping that you had changed your ways, but it looks like you have caught me in still another mistake in doing this.

What is your problem? In all my years in SPCF, I have had occasional robust disagreements with people, but you are the only one who has had a permanent grudge. I try to engage in civilized discussion, but as soon as I probe your assertions in any detail you become aggressive and respond with personal abuse. Well, if you think you can steamroller me into accepting your arguments, you are mistaken. Cut out the personal remarks, and pay more attention to people's objections.
Positor
Active Member

Posts: 1087
Joined: 05 Feb 2010

### Re: What is spacetime made of?

Positor,

When you finally “accomplish” whatever goal you were trying to accomplish with your comments, many times you just completely disappear from the thread with no further comment whatsoever.

Enough is enough Positor, I am not going down the rabbit hole with you anymore, and it’s nothing personal(I personallly believe you are the one who has been holding the grudge and have felt this way for a long time): I again, just do not like your posting style, and do not want to waste my time answering someone’s questions who will never give me the courtesy of saying that I am right about anything.

Well, that’s because I am never right about anything and I am a (implied) big dummy? Why would you completely waste your time ever responding to me then? You are trying to “help” me see the “error of my ways”? Please go help someone else: I’ll just have to struggle along without your help. Let’s both move on Positor.
ronjanec
Resident Member

Posts: 4414
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs

### Re: What is spacetime made of?

Our forum rules require posters to respond to specific points of fact and evidence, acquaint themselves with pertinent research, and refrain from making any thread a soapbox for repeating the same argument over and over. And posters must concede errors when presented with credible evidence of error. This thread does not meet forum standards and will be locked. Per our guidelines, any attempt to resume the argument in another thread or new thread may result in banning. (see Forum Etiquette, section IV)

BTW, false attribution of other members comments, using quotation marks, is also grounds for banning. I assume a word to the wise is sufficient.

TheVat

Posts: 7059
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

Previous

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests