hyksos » Sun Jan 15, 2017 4:26 pm wrote:ronjanec :I keep trying to explain to everyone here that the same type of logic must first be used in regards to "time", and to correctly answer the very important OP question is time real? Where is this "time" that many of you are talking about here? Or have any of you actually seen "time", like Mr. Leibniz challenged anyone to answer during his time here on the earth.
Granted, many of you really know your physics well, but if you cannot provide scientific evidence that "time" is real in the first place, you may be just wasting your time here,
Special Relativity is still strongly grounded in the Leibnizian view. Einstein repeated such several times in his 1950 article.
If by the word "time" we meant to refer to "That cosmic universal clock which ticks everywhere". I think that version of time became unreal (not in GR).. but as early as 1905. What happened after that was some perpetual arguments about the existence of a local clock, or a "local time" (if you want).
Do we have any real strong arguments in this thread? Well what do we really see in this thread?
(1.)
We have one person telling us that he has some personal feeling that the moment physicists starting referring to dilated clocks that physics "went off the rails" and "never came back". Is that a strong argument? We are to accept that physics "goes off the rails" and then just willy-nilly stick a universal clock back into the universe??
Undergraduate physics textbooks, which are actually used in real classrooms. The oft refer to the fact that you cannot reliably use GPS on trans-continental passenger airplane flights, unless and until you correct for Special Relativity. And yes -- until you correct for dilated clocks. This not something I read on a theoretical physics blog. It is in textbooks.
(2.)
rajnz00 , who simply point his finger at everyday phenomenon in the room he is sitting, and then flippantly (half sarcastically) dismisses every point you make. I might also mention that he is committing something called the Fallacy of Division. (more on this later) rajnz00 may also be authority-hijacking. Making his words close enough to Smolin's to pretend to quote him as authoritative. Even though the reborn Time that Smolin is referring to is likely some new kind of time that applies to changes over a dozen billion years as universes form and un-form. Smolin himself would be mortified at the idea that someone would take his local conditions on earth and extrapolate it to the entire universe as a whole. That mortification is repeated continually throughout his book. Also, Smolin throws doubts on fundamental symmetries of physics, using similar arguments.
If I'm being too wordy: Let me break it down. How likely do you think it is that Lee Smolin is suggesting we just go ahead and re-insert classical Newtonian Universal Clock back into physics? (when I ask the question that way, the answer becomes suddenly clear.)
In regards to the validity inferring the existence of time from physical phenomena (from being empirical) two important weapons for your toolbox.
"Water is wet. Therefore water molecules are wet."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
"I see cycles of time in these atoms on the desk here in my lab. Therefore, the universe has cycles of time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
hyksos,
You are smart enough to realize that you talking to someone who is not very well versed in modern physics, and who has also never pretended to be anything different. On the other hand, you are talking to a person who takes a back seat to no one when it comes to discussing time(and many other subjects) in metaphysical/ontological terms.
If I had your's, or Dave's, or DragonFly's, or Raj's knowledge of modern physics, I could incorporate my Metaphysical/Ontological knowledge in regards to "time", into a very specific argument on why I believe parts of modern physics are wrong in regards to "time".
I believe Dave, Dragonfly, and Raj basically only want to look at "time" from strictly a physics viewpoint(no offense intended guys): I did not include you in the same list hyksos, because I believe from reading some of your posts that you may think there is another aspect to "time" that modern physics may be missing, or posssibly even wrong about?
I do not believe in a cosmic universal clock that ticks everywhere, because I believe time only exists on earth where man and his timekeeping system exist. So I obviously believe that the Newtonian Universal Clock does not belong back in modern physics.
I again believe that "time" is not a real object or thing, so it would be impossible for time to ever physically slow down relative to this, that or anything else. Or in other words, time "dilation" is an illusion, and that famous atomic clocks experiment that "proved" this to be "true" was really silly in it's conception and premise.
I know that what you are saying about the the aircraft GPS is true, but I am not convinced that this is actually caused by relativistic principles.
With the exception of my doubts about the actual cause of the aircraft GPS issue: I have over the years gone into very great detail in trying to prove by Metaphysics/Ontology what I said here about time "dilation" and the concept of "universal" time(also the distinction between "time" and "duration" among other things)
