Re: Can time be separated from space?
From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/26/05
- Next message: jahn: "Re: Through a glass darkly"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds"
- In reply to: Lefty: "Re: Can time be separated from space?"
- Next in thread: Lefty: "Re: Can time be separated from space?"
- Reply: Lefty: "Re: Can time be separated from space?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 26 Mar 2005 14:01:57 -0800
Lefty wrote:
> > Lefty wrote:
> > > > So what you're saying, Lefty, is that if we can't see it, it
don't
> > > > exist, eh? Unless we are to hear a tree fall in the forest, it
> > makes
> > > > no sound, eh? The Sun rises every morning only when we are
there
> > awake
> > > > enough to see it come up, eh? So it makes perfect sense to
you,
> > eh?
> > > >
> > > > I say it's nonsense.
> > > > TomGee
> > > >
> > >
> > > What I'm saying is that there are certainly things which do not
exist
> > > relative to you and I, yet they do exist. Existence is relative,
> > because
> > > time ceases to exist relative to an observer on the quantum
scale.
> > >
> > >
> > No, not so. Existentialism is in the realm of Philosopy, which is
on
> > another planet wrt science. It does not even fit into Theoretical
> > Physics, which is not restricted to empirical evidence, since its
> > tenets are unfalsifiable. That was my point in my post, that as
far as
> > science goes, philosophy is nonsense.
> >
> > Your logic above is unsupportable:
> > P 1. Things exist relative to you and I
> > P 2. Things exist not relative to you and I
> > c 3. Existence is relative.
>
>
> Physics does not rely on first order logic. There is no reason to
expect
> that logic would reign over spacetime anyway. You cant even prove
that
> continuity exists, yet we use calculus anyway. Now you want to lean
on logic
> ? It's usefullness is limited. Take for example the following
statement -
>
> "A point in spacetime has the cardinality of the continuum".
>
> I think that I can justify this statement quite easily - yet it does
appear
> to be illogical, if not outright stupid. Yet, people said the same of
> Cantor, and we now know that there are many things which are
> counterintuitive - even stupid sounding, yet they are true.
Transfinite set
> theory seems to violate first order logic. Example -
>
> "There number of points in a line segment is equal to the number of
points
> in a 2dimensional tile." Lets see you prove that one with a first
order
> logic. I dont think that you can.
>
>
> > Obviously, if premise 2 is true, your conclusion 3 must be false.
Your
> > are using the term relative wrongly where you mean "observable"
("...to
> > you and I"). Something being not-observable to you and I does not
mean
> > it exists not-relative to you and I. And something which exists
> > not-relative to you and I does not lose any properties just because
of
> > that.
> >
> > You can say that our observation of the passage of time ceases to
exist
> > when we cannot see an object which has the property of time, but it
is
> > wrong to assume that just because we can no longer observe the
passage
> > of time for an object, time no longer passes for it. You know all
that
> > intuitively, but your zeal to believe in philosophic works engages
your
> > interest which in turn encourages you to turn to science for answer
to
> > your nagging doubts. This is good - I praise you for having the
> > intelligence to doubt. Many here do not, unfortunately, as they
seem
> > to be able to reasonably distinguish between the disciplines of
> > Physics, Theoretical Physics, Metaphysics, and Philosophy.
> > >
> > >
> > > Nothing
> > > can exist in delta_t = 0, and so anything on the quantum scale or
> > smaller
> > > can be considered nonexistent relative to an observer. Yet -
these
> > things
> > > really do exist in an absolute sense. We see the effects of this
as
> > > nonlocality and superluminality.
> > >
> > > Now we have the femtosecond time-interference experiment - and
nobody
> > seems
> > > to have a reasonable explanation of this. It is elementary. Time
> > ceases to
> > > exist relative to an observer on that scale, but it still exists
in
> > an
> > > absolute sense. It must leave a footprint, and it does so by
being
> > > equivalent with length (on that scale).
> > >
> > >
> > Interesting idea. And just how do you propose it does that? How
does
> > the passage of time set the length of an object, if not by its
state of
> > motion?
>
>
> Time is a dimension. Length is a dimension. On the quantum scale they
are
> equivalent relative to an observer.
>
> Do you have a better explanation of the femtosecond time-interference
> experiment ?
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > I dont mean to be critical about your idea that time is a
property of
> > > matter, I simply think it's "not quite" correct. If you consider
that
> > all
> > > matter is just standing waves in 4D, then yes - time is a
property of
> > it,
> > > and it is a property of time - depending on your usage of the
word
> > > "property".
> > >
> > >
> > It is fine for you to disagree, but you did not say exactly why you
> > disagree, you only give an example with which you do agree (which
IMO
> > does not describe my model at all since I make no claim that matter
is
> > just standing waves). My usage of the term property is the same as
> > physics applies it - as a quality of something.
> >
> > Your contention that standing waves are properties of time and
> > vice-versa is unsupported as all works seem to say waves are devoid
of
> > matter, and you seem to agree with me that even waves must have
some
> > matter in order to conform to E=mc^2 and the Principle of
Mass/Energy.
>
>
> The above is incorrect.
>
>
> > > This conversation goes beyond arguments about properties of
> > > things, and well into existentialism.
> > >
> > >
> > If so, you are obviously in the wrong newsgroup, no?
Existentialism is
> > ->->->->-> that-a-way->->->->.
>
> Existentialism is a philosophical framework upon which physical
reasoning
> may be based. Just as notions of local-ness, and non-localness.
>
>
No, not so. Existentialism is "philosophical movement centered on
individual existence: a 20th-century philosophical movement that denies
that the universe has any intrinsic meaning or purpose and requires
individuals to take responsibility for their own actions and shape
their own destinies
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved."
Do you see your error in thinking that you can base "physical
reasoning" on it? Obviously, nothing could be more wrong than what you
claim above.
>
>
> I agree that
> philosophy is frequently a load of crap - but you cannot separate it
from a
> physical model. As soon as you set out to do physics, you are
automatically
> a philosopher. You cannot escape this.
>
>
That's wrong, too. Cite a reference specifically related to your
claim, please.
>
>
> I always laugh to see silly algebraic formulas such as the
description of
> pendulum motion. It works, but it is very, very crude. You would
neccesarily
> have to be a philosopher to accept this model as an approximation of
> reality.
>
>
No one in science accepts math constructs as approximations of reality
except for the dolts who think math is reality, and it is sad that
there are many of them around these ngs.
>
> > >
> > > Time is a dimension, and matter is a
> > > waveform. They coexist, and they are not really properties of
each
> > other.
> > >
> > >
> > Why not?
> > >
> > >
> > > Is water a property of Tsunami ? Is Tsunami a property of water ?
> > Neither
> > > case really - they merely coexist.
> > >
> > >
> > No one has said one is a property of the other. Your thinking that
> > only shows your limitation in understanding the term property as
> > defined in Physics.
> >
> > TomGee
>
>
> You stated that time was a property of matter. My position is that
matter is
> a wave in spacetime,
>
>
Not so again, since s-t is a fictional place as a math construct and as
such it cannot have matter in it except by us imagining matter to be in
it. As for your denial that matter exists visible to us as objects and
not as waves, you have not yet offered any support for that claim.
Saying it don't make it so, y'know.
>
>
> and is therefore "composed" of (3+1) spacetime.
>
>
You seem to be making up your own definitions of the terms you use, as
neither matter nor waves are composed of s-t. Wherever did you come up
with that?
>
>
> Matter
> is therefore constituted, at least in part, of time - (considering
time as a
> dimension). Matter is partially composed of time, it's only other
> constituents are length. It is a wave, and that is all. A peculiar
species
> of 4D waveform.
>
>
Sorry, but again, just saying it don't make it so.
>
>
> You can go on stating that time is a "property" of matter - but the
> existence of time is simply not dependent upon the presence of
matter.
> Certainly, if you dont have time you cannot have matter - but not
vice
> versa.
>
>
In physics, a dimension is a group of properties which collectively
define a physical quantity. In our minds, we can have empty ref.
frames cavorting about the universe; all we need do is make up a set of
coordinates for them. But for real, we cannot do such a thing as there
is no way that such coordinates are real points in space. Real
coordinates must include observable points in space, or objects, for
the coordinates to be applied to reality. The same with time, in the
usual way we think of time.
We think of it as analogous to a Great Fabric that has a power which is
imposed equally on everything in the universe. But SR has claimed that
is not so because in the Twin Paradox, it is shown that time rates vary
between two twin in an experiment. Such a claim overthrows the idea
that time is a Great Fabric and those having a problem with that are
urged to take it up with SR. SR overthrows that idea with several
examples of the time dilation effect, and since the effect is
universally observed, it cannot then be that time has the power to
subject anything to its so-thought immutable flow.
But all is not lost for the concept of time as a fourth dimension of
our universe. Good thing, too, since we cannot deny it is one of a
group which collectively defines physical quantities in our universe.
The common view of time exists analogous to the common view light as a
range of wavelengths on a spectral chart. Time as a dimension can be
viewed as a range of time rates which exist for endless possibility of
the states of motion available to matter in our universe. It is very
difficult for us to grasp this new idea because we already have one
idea of time, but there are other examples where duality seems to play
a role of one sort or another, no?
TomGee
- Next message: jahn: "Re: Through a glass darkly"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds"
- In reply to: Lefty: "Re: Can time be separated from space?"
- Next in thread: Lefty: "Re: Can time be separated from space?"
- Reply: Lefty: "Re: Can time be separated from space?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
