Is Time Real?

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

Re: Is Time Real?

Postby ronjanec on January 8th, 2017, 11:51 pm 

rajnz00 » Sun Jan 08, 2017 4:16 pm wrote:
hyksos » January 8th, 2017, 4:41 pm wrote:At the beginning of this he claimed he was "doing physics".

I was wrong. There was no physics till you came along. How is the grading system going? I will try harder to get better grades, but I must protest about ronjanec. You gave him only a B+ for his observation:
.. many things in the universe physically aged fine before "time existed" in the universe, or before man caused time to exist in the universe with his timekeeping system.

For shame


Thanks Raj!
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 9th, 2017, 12:22 am 

ronjanec » January 8th, 2017, 11:35 pm wrote:We "feel" or actually "perceive" "the flow of time?(or, "the feeling of time refuses to go away"?) No we don't: What you are actually feeling in this particular context is your personal awareness of your own individual existence going or continuing on, or your individual life going or continuing on.

What is "going" or "continuing on"?
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby ronjanec on January 9th, 2017, 12:40 am 

rajnz00 » Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:22 pm wrote:
ronjanec » January 8th, 2017, 11:35 pm wrote:We "feel" or actually "perceive" "the flow of time?(or, "the feeling of time refuses to go away"?) No we don't: What you are actually feeling in this particular context is your personal awareness of your own individual existence going or continuing on, or your individual life going or continuing on.

What is "going" or "continuing on"?


Again, your personal or individual existence/life is actually going or continuing on Raj(you are personally aware of this "feeling" whenever you are conscious) Confusing this particular "feeling" or awareness, with believing that you are instead or also actually "feeling" time passing on is an illusion.
Last edited by ronjanec on January 9th, 2017, 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 9th, 2017, 1:07 am 

You haven't answered my question. What do you mean by "going" or "continuing on"?
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real

Postby ronjanec on January 9th, 2017, 1:23 am 

rajnz00 » Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:07 pm wrote:You haven't answered my question. What do you mean by "going" or "continuing on"?


You are aware of personally being alive, and your life continuing on. Why are you not getting this Raj?
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 9th, 2017, 1:57 am 

Sorry ronjanec, just want to know what you mean by "going" or "continuing on". "Going" or "continuing", two words
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby ronjanec on January 9th, 2017, 3:40 am 

I think I see what you mean here Raj,

I used "going"("on") here to mean something(or your existence or life in this particular case) is occurring right now: "Continuing on" was meant to mean something is occurring right now and continuing. Now that you have brought this to my much closer attention, I probably did not need to add the words "going""("on") here, because both words basically mean or imply pretty much the same thing(or again, occurrence right now and continuance). And "going or continuing on" was supposed to (also) mean "going on"(my bad)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 9th, 2017, 5:38 am 

Hi all,

Quickly.. we see Time flow from experience and memory etc. It is Subjective and Real. But if the objective mechanism behind Time is that it is sliced into a sequence of 3D still frames of 1 Planck Interval (indivisible) thickness.. then what is so strange about accepting such a Mechanism? Knowing the underlying mechanism behind Time doesn't take anything away from our experience of it. It just means that Time is a stepped high resolution rapid sequence of frames. Big Deal.. we see that everyday in Movies and Video Games and don't question the mechanism that gives the illusion that it is seamless.

It seems the main controversy I bring to the table is that I doubt that History ceases to Exist behind the Present. I accept we Exist on the leading edge of a continuous Creation Wave. I just don't see an erasing mechanism nor any requirement for such to exist. Such an erase mechanism doesn't exist in Books and Movies but does exist for Video Games.. for economic reasons (a forced cheat).

Another controversy is that I tie this Creation Wave to the Expansion of the Universe giving us an Arrow of Time. The Big Bang is still on-going but cooled off considerably today. I'll have to wait a few more years to see if this idea gains popularity or can be proven (or falsified) somehow.

One other very minor quibble.. could everyone perhaps be a bit more careful in using your Quote Boxes? Many occasions exist where some comments appear as belonging to someone else.. inside such a Quote Box. Makes it a bit hard to track who said what to whom (a bit sloppy).

Best Regards all,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3098
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 9th, 2017, 6:03 am 

Dave: The Big Bang is still on-going but cooled off considerably today.

Not true. Not only is the universe expanding, but it is doing so at an accelerating rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerat ... e_universe

Many occasions exist where some comments appear as belonging to someone else.
The comments in bold are the quotes. And the ones below that, not in bold, are my comments on the quotes.
It's not sloppy at all.

I just don't see an erasing mechanism

Oh don't you? That's funny. It's all around you and universal. It's called loss of memory, loss of information, and it increases with TIME. Its in our DNA, our neurons, our paper books, stone tablets, CD disks. Nothing lasts forever.
Your past lives in your memory, but gets dimmer with age.

rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 9th, 2017, 6:31 am 

ronjanec: "Continuing on" was meant to mean something is occurring right now and continuing.

ronjanec, if you asked me the meaning of "exasperating", and I said exasperating means exasperating, or to exasperate someone, that is not a very good definition. Should you not give a definition of the word either from your own understanding of it or from a dictionary? Repeating the same word over and over again is not very enlightening, and in fact, a bit exasperating.
"Continuing implies existing uninterruptedly for an appreciable length of time."
So you said "What you are actually feeling in ..is your personal awareness of your own individual existence going or continuing on"
and when we substitute the meaning of "going or continuing on" we get "What you are actually feeling in ..is your personal awareness of your own individual existence existing uninterruptedly for an appreciable length of time"
So then the question arises - what is time?
Your explanation is circular, when you realise what "continuing on" is.
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 9th, 2017, 1:58 pm 

Hi Raj,

1st: The Big Bang is still on going. It is an Expansion Model vs Steady State that is broken into stages.. all parts are part of the same whole.

2nd: If you use your personal technique on my above statement.. you will have modified my emphasis. That would be sloppy. I mostly object to missing Name Stamps.. seen in many posts.. to know who is speaking to whom. That is Sloppy.

3rd. Since you have shown no understanding of what I've said regarding an Eraser, then of course you would resort to Strawman arguments to debunk my Statement. Many Atoms in your body were built inside a remote Star many Billions of years ago.. good thing they haven't been erased or you wouldn't be possible.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3098
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 9th, 2017, 2:53 pm 

Dave_Oblad » January 9th, 2017, 1:58 pm wrote:1st: The Big Bang is still on going. It is an Expansion Model vs Steady State that is broken into stages.. all parts are part of the same whole

So what you are saying is the present expansion is less than the inflation? But what you said was "The Big Bang is still on-going but cooled off considerably today." If it is accelerating today, it has not "cooled off". Maybe you could explain more scientifically/
2nd:

OK if you say so :)
3rd. Since you have shown no understanding of what I've said regarding an Eraser, then of course you would resort to Strawman arguments to debunk my Statement. Many Atoms in your body were built inside a remote Star many Billions of years ago.. good thing they haven't been erased or you wouldn't be possible.

What you had said was "I doubt that History ceases to Exist behind the Present...I just don't see an erasing mechanism nor any requirement for such to exist."
History is tied with information, not with the Law of conservation of Mass/Energy. Although the atoms in my body may be preserved, the information they carry is linked with their arrangement, which is not preserved. This is not a strawman argument.
Regards
Raj
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 9th, 2017, 6:58 pm 

Hi Raj,

The Big Bang is a Model for the whole expansion Process.. not just the initial rapid inflation part. I'm sure you have seen this Model of the Universe Expansion:

BigBang.jpg

You might note the Scale marking at the Bottom.

The 2nd issue I mentioned is just Forum etiquette and convention. Applies to everyone including me.

The 3rd issue is your comparison to the degrading of information over time and does not reflect my concept of Erasing History. In my view the Expanding Block Model is represented in the above image. My position is that the whole thing still exists and not just the leading edge of "Now".

That degradation of information is occurring on the leading edge of "Now".. not back in Time.

If you understood my position then your correct response should have been that the Atoms I mentioned have a propagating existence at the present and my Eraser has nothing to do with Erasing what exists "Now".

This is why I suggested that Ligo might detect an event that happened back in the body of History and not just along the surface of "Now".

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3098
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby ronjanec on January 9th, 2017, 8:11 pm 

Raj,

"What you are actually feeling...is your personal awareness of your own individual existence existing uninterruptedly for an appreciable lenght of time" No Raj, my actually "feeling" my continued individual existence or being personaly aware of this does not also require an awareness of an "appreciable lenght of time" passing whenever I just "feel" this or become aware of this. We are talking about two different concepts here.

A far more important problem with your summation here, and also important to the OP question, is what I believe you are also saying and wrongly believing with the same statement;

What man calls "time passing"(or an appreciable length of time in your statement) only exists in the universe as terminology man uses to describe the many different increasing results of his timekeeping system(called seconds, minutes, and hours, or again, time said to be existing, passing, and increasing), and the naturally occurring physical results of planetary movement on the surface of the earth(called days, months, seasons, and years, or again, time said to be existing, passing, and increasing).

What I believe you are actually thinking and believing here with again your summation statement, is that time existing and passing is some kind of strange object or thing that is existing all around us in the universe, that you personally believe you can actually feel during the course of your individual continued existence, instead of some appreciable, and very familar timekeeping system results.

"Time existing", "time passing", or "Spacetime" actually beginning in the Big Bang completely independent of man's timekeeping system is an illusion Raj. If the Big Bang theory is correct...this was actually just the beginning of duration: And "time existing and passing" and "duration" are two completely different concepts with two different meanings.
Last edited by ronjanec on January 9th, 2017, 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 9th, 2017, 8:25 pm 

Dave_Oblad wrote:Hi Raj,
I'm sure you have seen this Model of the Universe Expansion:

Hi Dave, Thanks for that picture. First thing I noticed was the flaring out of that section at the end, which is a geometrical depiction of acceleration. For those whose eyesight may not be that good, they have written, “Dark Energy Accelerated expansion”, with an arrow pointing to our times, but seems to have started pretty much when the galaxies and planets developed.
The evidence you have produced, conclusively shows that your statement, "The Big Bang.. [has] cooled off considerably today", is blatantly wrong.
My position is that the whole thing still exists and not just the leading edge of "Now"

If that be so, where is it? Why can’t I approach the past? I am fairly certain you are existing, (a contuing process), along the continuing wave of “Now”. I can travel along it to where you are and shake your hand, in the future, but I cannot travel back to where Hitler was and kill him or go back to Jihadi John and smash him, at the moment he was standing gloatingly with his knife above his hapless victim. I cannot even travel back to where I was a nanosecond ago.
That degradation of information is occurring on the leading edge of "Now".. not back in Time

I don’t think so. Information is formed by interactions at the leading edge of “Now”, which also creates the leading edge of “Now”, but immediately starts degrading thereafter. We have less information about Tyrannosaurus Rex than we have about the modern poodle. There is a backward arrow of information, just like that of thermodynamical entropy.
This is why I suggested that Ligo might detect an event that happened back in the body of History and not just along the surface of "Now"

We are perpetually detecting events that happened back in the body of History, we don’t need Ligo for that. We are detecting stars and galaxies and supernova that existed billions of years ago. We detected dinosaurs and past life in fossils, that doesn’t prove they are still there. Like old movies of your childhood, or childhood toys, they are just memories, they do not take you back to those moments.

Regards

Raj

“What is by now evident and clear is that neither future nor past exists, ..[only] In the soul there are these three aspects of time [past, present, and future], and I do not see them anywhere else. The present considering the past is memory, the present considering the present is immediate awareness, the present considering the future is expectation.” - St Augustine
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 9th, 2017, 10:32 pm 

Hi Raj,

Raj wrote:The evidence you have produced, conclusively shows that your statement, "The Big Bang.. [has] cooled off considerably today", is blatantly wrong.

Then why in that image does the far left look so bright and the far right looks so cool? The whole thing about the CMB indicates the past was a lot hotter than today. And it's predicted things will get a lot colder in the future.

Raj wrote:If that be so, where is it? Why can’t I approach the past?

First make a pointing finger.. now point at yesterday. That's the direction of the past. Not easy to do for 3D creatures that can't bend in that direction. If you could go back in time you would crash into yourself. It would be a mess.. you know.. two objects can't occupy the same Space at the same Time.. etc. It would look like a fly hitting your windshield. Do you know what the last thing is, that goes though a Fly's mind, when it hits your windshield head on? (His Butt)

Raj wrote:I don’t think so. Information is formed by interactions at the leading edge of “Now”, which also creates the leading edge of “Now”, but immediately starts degrading thereafter. We have less information about Tyrannosaurus Rex than we have about the modern poodle. There is a backward arrow of information, just like that of thermodynamical entropy.

We all have photo albums. I look at a photo of me 40 years ago and I look like a lean mean fighting machine. (MP in the Army) but as I move towards more current Images I see myself degrading.. getting wrinkles.. fat.. grey hair.. Thus the effect of degrading is following the Arrow of Time. I was sitting in a cafe a few weeks back and noticed this really old decrepit man sitting across from me.. staring at me. I thought how fortunate I am to not be him.. until I realized I was looking into a mirror.

Bottom line.. stuff doesn't degrade into the past.. stuff degrades into the future.

Raj wrote:We are perpetually detecting events that happened back in the body of History, we don’t need Ligo for that.

We see history via electromagnetic (photon) carriers that have a light speed limit. Ligo measures waves that are ripples in the very Foundation of Reality, and thus has the potential of seeing extreme past events.. that occurred almost locally. For that.. you need something like Ligo. Light won't cut it.

Now a question for you: Why can't light go faster than light speed? More exactly, if two beams are projected in parallel towards you and one is from a stationary source and the other from a moving source towards you.. then sure there will be Doppler shift.. but both beams will pass you at the same speed. Why can't the speed of light be added to the speed of the source of that light?

The answer is connected to Time.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3098
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 10th, 2017, 12:37 am 

Dave_Oblad » January 9th, 2017, 10:32 pm wrote:Hi Raj,

Raj wrote:The evidence you have produced, conclusively shows that your statement, "The Big Bang.. [has] cooled off considerably today", is blatantly wrong.

Then why in that image does the far left look so bright and the far right looks so cool? The whole thing about the CMB indicates the past was a lot hotter than today. And it's predicted things will get a lot colder in the future.
Dave :^)


Dave, I find this mildly irritating. Are we talking at cross-purposes, or am I not understanding you. Your entire quote was:
Dave: The Big Bang is still on-going but cooled off considerably today.
What was the BUT about? You have said that if the universe stopped expanding and reversed time would stop and reverse., so I presumed you were talking about the expansion cooling off. I was talking about the expansion and I said so. You could have merely told me you were talking about the temperature, specially when I told you the expansion was getting faster.. Of course, the Universe is getting colder. So what is the BUT about? Why the But? Will it get hotter?

Regards
Raj
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 10th, 2017, 1:39 am 

Dave irritation over. Not important.
Dave_Oblad wrote:January 9th, 2017, 10:32 pm First make a pointing finger.. now point at yesterday. That's the direction of the past. Not easy to do for 3D creatures that can't bend in that direction.

You seem to have no difficulty. All you do is point to a point in a diagram and say that's real, It exists.
Dave_Oblad wrote: If you could go back in time you would crash into yourself. It would be a mess.. you know.. two objects can't occupy the same Space at the same Time.. etc.

That's the first example you've shown of the universe being considerate. I'm not allowed to crash into myself in space-time, only other objects. Couldn't I be allowed to follow a slightly displaced path so that I do not crash into myself? Just kinda stand beside myself? What about a wormhole? Between two black holes?
Dave existence is only in the continuum of "Nows". That's the only thing that allows us to hit a moving ball in tennis, play, move, interact. The tummy ache I had yesterday, no longer exists.
Dave_Oblad wrote: Bottom line.. stuff doesn't degrade into the past.. stuff degrades into the future.

"Stuff" is matter/energy - degrading into the future - third law of thermodynamics
Information - degrades into the past
Regards
Raj
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 10th, 2017, 2:15 am 

PS
Dave_Oblad wrote: January 9th, 2017, 10:32 We see history via electromagnetic (photon) carriers that have a light speed limit. Ligo measures waves that are ripples in the very Foundation of Reality, and thus has the potential of seeing extreme past events.. that occurred almost locally. For that.. you need something like Ligo. Light won't cut it.

For your information gravity waves also travel at the speed of light.
Ligo measures waves that are ripples in the very Foundation of Reality, and thus has the potential of seeing extreme past events.

That is very dramatic, but gravity waves are crucial not because "they are ripples in the very Foundation of Reality" but they are ripples in space-time and not stopped by material objects, like stars and matter, unlike light.
And what does "almost locally" mean?
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 10th, 2017, 8:21 am 

Hi Raj,

Dave wrote:The Big Bang is still on-going but cooled off considerably today.

I said that because some may think the big bang ended after the initial hot inflation.. it didn't.. It's still on going.

Raj wrote:You have said that if the universe stopped expanding and reversed time would stop and reverse.

Maybe someone else said that.. but all I said was that if the Universe stopped expanding.. Time would also stop. Time reversal sounds like a subject from another thread.. not this one. I don't see any mechanism to reverse Time (or erase history..lol).

My view of the Universe supposes an almost infinite number of copies of you, one in each Time Slice. That going back in Time would pile you up with the previous versions of yourself. From your concept of Time, I'm pretty sure that makes no sense at all..lol.

Gravity Waves travel at the speed of light is an unproven assumption. Surface ripples could be restricted by Universe expansion and thus be at light speed. But.. there may be a lot more than just surface ripples. If there was a black hole about 100 light years from us eating a companion star.. then with a telescope.. we know we are seeing what was happening 100 years ago. I'll call that local. But if that black hole formed 1 billion years ago from a cosmic disaster, then it would be too local to see the actual event with today's telescope. But Ligo might detect it as a Compression wave coming up through history from the past... if I'm right that all of history still exists as a 4D continuum.

See.. I've already explored most everything from the obvious side of the fence. Now I'm exploring the possibilities on the other side of that fence. I make no claim to believe all my speculations.. I just voice them to open minds up beyond the mundane.. to new potentials. Makes life more interesting for some.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3098
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 10th, 2017, 10:10 am 

Dave_Oblad » January 10th, 2017, 8:21 am wrote:Dave wrote: I said that because some may think the big bang ended after the initial hot inflation.. it didn't.. It's still on going.

Why should anyone think that, when the expansion is not only still going on but accelerating? And as for the temperature, for the universe as a whole, it will get colder, so long as the expansion continues. No “but” about it.
Dave wrote: My view of the Universe supposes an almost infinite number of copies of you, one in each Time Slice.

That, of course, is patently wrong. No copy of me, or anyone, or anything, ever existed in the past present or future. As Heraclitus put it, no man steps into the same river twice, because it’s not the same river, and he is not the same man. I am not the same person, from one moment to the next. My cells have moved, interacted, been born and died and it is not in the same “river”, (space-time), I “swim” in.
Dave wrote: [That] Gravity Waves travel at the speed of light is an unproven assumption.

Wrong! Ligo has directly measured gravity waves, and confirmed they travel at the speed of light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_ ... onal_waves
Dave wrote: But if that black hole formed 1 billion years ago from a cosmic disaster, then it would be too local to see the actual event with today's telescope.

Still don’t know what you mean by “too local”. Makes no sense to me. If your language is clear, your thoughts will be clear too. But again, you are absolutely wrong about our telescopes not being able to see the formation of a black hole from a mere 1 billion years ago. Hubble has spotted Supernova from more than 10 billion years ago. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubb ... ilson.html
Gravity waves have incredibly small amplitudes, so only things like the merger of two black holes could make them detectable by Ligo.
Dave wrote: But Ligo might detect it as a Compression wave coming up through history from the past... if I'm right that all of history still exists as a 4D continuum.

Dave, how does detecting an event from the past, be it by light, or gravity, prove that it still exists? If you saw an old movie from your childhood, would that prove to you that, that child still existed?
See.. I've already explored most everything from the obvious side of the fence. Now I'm exploring the possibilities on the other side of that fence. I make no claim to believe all my speculations.. I just voice them to open minds up beyond the mundane.. to new potentials. Makes life more interesting for some.

Yep :)

Regards
Raj
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby Braininvat on January 10th, 2017, 11:12 am 

Raj, what DOb means by too local:

We can observe a BH forming 10 GY ago, IF it happens to be 10 GLY away from us. However, if it were only 1000 LY away from us, then we missed it. It was too local to observe the remote past when it was born.

Dave is speculating that gravity waves, unlike light, could reverberate through spacetime in such a way that we could detect events that are too local for us to see their EMF emissions or a neutrino flux. Clear enough?
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 5073
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 10th, 2017, 2:46 pm 

Braininvat » January 10th, 2017, 11:12 am wrote:Raj, what DOb means by too local:

We can observe a BH forming 10 GY ago, IF it happens to be 10 GLY away from us. However, if it were only 1000 LY away from us, then we missed it. It was too local to observe the remote past when it was born.

Dave is speculating that gravity waves, unlike light, could reverberate through spacetime in such a way that we could detect events that are too local for us to see their EMF emissions or a neutrino flux. Clear enough?

Braininvat, with respect, that is not what Dave is saying, just the opposite, in fact. What he said was our light telescopes would catch events 100 light years from us, but fail to catch events 1 billion years ago, which would be "too local".
Dave wrote: If there was a black hole about 100 light years from us eating a companion star.. then with a telescope.. we know we are seeing what was happening 100 years ago. I'll call that local. But if that black hole formed 1 billion years ago from a cosmic disaster, then it would be too local to see the actual event with today's telescope. But Ligo might detect it as a Compression wave coming up through history from the past

And, in fact, Ligo would be much more likely to catch a nearer wave, than a further one. And they would still travel at the speed of light, so they would be detected at the same time as with our light telescopes.
The greatest information we got from the detection of the gravity wave, was the confirmation of General Relativity and not any confirmation of the continuing existence of the past event, as Dave claims.
Regards
Raj
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby Braininvat on January 10th, 2017, 3:26 pm 

You didn't read "...formed 1 billion years ago..." and understand that he was referring still to the BH that was 100 LY distant?

Seemed pretty clear to me. We can only see its state 100 years ago. So we cannot see its formation.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 5073
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 10th, 2017, 3:31 pm 

Seemed pretty clear to me. We can only see its state 100 years ago. So we cannot see its formation.

Sorry missed that. But neither can we with gravity waves, unless you assume they travel at infinite speed, which they don't
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby hyksos on January 10th, 2017, 7:41 pm 

rajnz00

You have totally misinterpreted my post.

I was asking you, why is it, in your endless quest to explain your personal "FEELIING" of a flow of time, that you are pressing directly into the coefficients of Einstien's Field Equations --- and why are you not considering the particular aspects of the human body as a living organism in the wet, warm biosphere of the earth?

You have to explain to this forum, that if it is subjective "feelings of time flow" that you seek to explain, why would it be methodologically sound to completely ignore the brain, to ignore biology, to ignore thermodynamics, to ignore the immediate conditions of the earth's surface in providing very good evidence towards an explanation.

Why are you persistently avoiding all of these grand scientific disciplines, and pushing directly into fundamental physics? ...and why should we?
User avatar
hyksos
Member
 
Posts: 864
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
ronjanec liked this post


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby Dave_Oblad on January 10th, 2017, 7:51 pm 

Hi Raj and Everyone,

I take observations and question if there are alternative explanations or if observations provide more insight into how the Universe works. One such observation is the Speed of Light Limitation. It makes no sense why it should be limited. Thus I concluded that it must be tied to something else. The most likely choice is to tie it to the Growth Speed of the Universe, allowing me to make a statement that nothing can move (or propagate) on a path faster than that path is being Created.

This tells me that such a path must be a surface path. That doesn't work if the Universe is only a 3D Object, thus I must conclude that the Universe must be a 4D object (minimum). That's the only solution to being able to have 3 observable axis of freedom (x,y,z) with an extra axis (time) that provides a surface on which a path can be built. One side effect of which would be called an Arrow of Time.

Since Gravity Waves are a compression/expansion wave of a medium and not Electromagnetic/Photonic by nature, then such are not limited to 3D surface travel. I accept they can be and thus those surface waves may have a Light Speed Limit but not all such waves are limited to travel on just the surface. Thus we can't know (yet) what the speed of such waves is under the surface.

The thickness of Time Hypothesis is based on a simple fact that a single Time Slice doesn't contain enough information for propagation of said Information. You can't have Velocity and Direction information unless you include History as a source of said Information. Now we find that freedom becomes limited to the how much history can be included. For each additional slice of Time/History we include.. the greater the freedom becomes.

This leads to the question how much History is required for the resolution we see in such degrees of freedom? This leads to an obvious fact that Time must have a minimum Thickness. This leads to a question of determining what Mechanism erases History beyond such a minimum Thickness. I see no natural reason to have such an eraser giving me a reasonable conclusion that History is never erased or ceases to exist.

Thus the Thickness of Time can extend all the way back to the beginning of The Universe.

It is within that Thickness that Gravity Waves can have a Medium by which to propagate that is not limited to a simple surface limitation. The realization that I keep treating Time as a Physical Distance leads me to the conclusion that "Time", as we perceive it, must be an Illusion. That Time must actually be just a Physical Distance.

By adding new blank layers of 3D space to the surface of the 4D Construct.. I also get to avoid an issue of Self Interference with a previous Geometry contained in a previous Slice of Time (distance). Thus the propagation of my physical geometry at the sub-atomic levels is an evolution of such geometry. Thus each Time Slice contains some minimum of information that is unique to previous Time Slices. Since the Geometry of me is composed of Cyclic information.. the there must exist some demarcation where cycles repeat.

That thickness represents enough thickness to be called a whole version of me. A series of such demarcations means that multiple copies of myself must exist back through Time if separated as fully completed cycles. Since it is unlikely that a specific thickness can contain all cycles synced as being completed, then the only real conclusion I can draw is that I am not the same me as I was awhile back in Time. I am a propagation of Information as new versions of me are being created constantly. In 4D, my existence becomes a smear of information leading back to my conception.

Anyway, if some people would spend more Time trying to understand what I'm saying and less time trying to force this into fitting their own view.. then Most questions would have obvious answers without needing to be asked.

I'm not saying anyone has to accept these viewpoints I offer.. but simply understanding them would be of great help and a Real Time saver (pardon the pun). I am not some wack job trying to convince anyone that the Moon is made of Cheese. I am saying that there are deeper explanations for what we observe, if one takes the Time to look for them.

Question Everything. Science doesn't claim to know everything. If one looks closely enough then one can detect the ragged edges. Those are worth exploring.

Thinking outside the proverbial Box is a thankless task.. but somebody has to do it. You never know what one might find that could change everything.

Best wishes all,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3098
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 10th, 2017, 8:59 pm 

Dave: Thinking outside the proverbial Box is a thankless task

Well I thank you for it. Just read your post and it has got me thinking. You maybe wrong about somethings, but maybe right on the button about others. Remember you tried to work out in a simplistic way, that Time = Distance? You bungled that all right, but here's the thing. SI defines the Second as the time it takes for a certain number of "jiggles" in a caesium atom, under certain conditions, and they have defined a metre as distance travelled by a particle, travelling at the speed of light in 1/x amount of seconds. The figures are not important here. What's important is that the same atomic clock that measures our time, also measures our distance. So I will have to give this a bit of thought. As about some of the other stuff you have written here. Stuff to do. Till later.
Regards
Raj
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby ronjanec on January 10th, 2017, 11:00 pm 

hyksos » Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:41 pm wrote:rajnz00

You have totally misinterpreted my post.

I was asking you, why is it, in your endless quest to explain your personal "FEELIING" of a flow of time, that you are pressing directly into the coefficients of Einstien's Field Equations --- and why are you not considering the particular aspects of the human body as a living organism in the wet, warm biosphere of the earth?

You have to explain to this forum, that if it is subjective "feelings of time flow" that you seek to explain, why would it be methodologically sound to completely ignore the brain, to ignore biology, to ignore thermodynamics, to ignore the immediate conditions of the earth's surface in providing very good evidence towards an explanation.

Why are you persistently avoiding all of these grand scientific disciplines, and pushing directly into fundamental physics? ...and why should we?


It sounds like Raj and Dave only want to look at this from the physics angle, and a very speculative and theoretical angle at that.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Is Time Real?

Postby rajnz00 on January 10th, 2017, 11:24 pm 

hyksos wrote:.. why is it, in your endless quest to explain your personal "FEELIING" of a flow of time, that you are pressing directly into the coefficients of Einstien's Field Equations

They are not my personal "feeling" of a flow of time. I had clarified it as a feeling and/or perception. This feeling is universal to all of mankind. When a “feeling”, like this, is so ubiquitous and universal, then it can be classed as an “observation”, like the sun rising from the east and setting in the west. Everyone experiences it. It is not subjective. It demands an explanation. It is not sufficient to say it’s an illusion because the equations of GR say so. We also need refutations of the reasons and arguments as to why it is not an illusion.
why would it be methodologically sound to completely ignore the brain, to ignore biology, to ignore thermodynamics, to ignore the immediate conditions of the earth's surface in providing very good evidence towards an explanation

I am not, as you claim, ignoring the brain, biology, thermodynamics, the immediate conditions of the earth's surface. If as you say they provide very good evidence towards an explanation, then tell me what it is. I had already refuted thermodynamics in providing an explanation for the arrow of time, in my topic in physics. I told you this earlier. Go back and read it. That's why I didn't refer to it again.

For your information, Boltzmann did not, as you have stated, “try to prove that "time" is equivalent to an increase in entropy.", he merely provided the theoretical basis for the second law of thermodynamics (entropy always increases in a closed system), which was rejected during his time, (he hanged himself because of the depression brought about by his rejection). This was argued by Sir Arthur Eddington, and has been accepted without question for almost a century. But there is no experimental evidence for it. In fact time is unaffected by changes of entropy.
rajnz00
Member
 
Posts: 243
Joined: 28 Dec 2016


PreviousNext

Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests