|
Post by carnyx on Oct 16, 2010 15:47:00 GMT 1
The most simple sequence of all is the binary count of a sequence of events. And the only property we need to assign to the event is via a detector that will signal an unambiguous presence or absence of said event. On other words the detector obeys the 'law of the excluded middle'.
All you then need to do to count an event is to detect its presence, followed by its absence.And every time it is detected, you add one to your total. That number is your 't' of the equations.
And at its most elemental, it is the interval between events. And the ONLY way of measuing this intevcal is by reference to the number of counts in a separate sequence-counter!
The 't' of the equations is a relative number! It has no physical independent presence, like mass, or time.
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 16, 2010 16:35:26 GMT 1
The most simple sequence of all is the binary count of a sequence of events. And the only property we need to assign to the event is via a detector that will signal an unambiguous presence or absence of said event. On other words the detector obeys the 'law of the excluded middle'. Once again, you can't count them unless they are separate. What separates them? All you then need to do to count an event is to detect its presence, followed by its absence.And every time it is detected, you add one to your total. That number is your 't' of the equations. Oh, THINK! 'Followed' in what!? The concept of events following each other is exactly as real (or fictional) as time is..... And at its most elemental, it is the interval between events. And the ONLY way of measuing this intevcal is by reference to the number of counts in a separate sequence-counter! The 't' of the equations is a relative number! It has no physical independent presence, like mass, or time. Now you've jumped back to measuring time. Yes, you can only measure time by comparison, You can only measure length by comparison, you can only measure mass by comparison etc. etc. etc..... Still not the slightest hint of an argument as to why time is less real than anything else...
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 16, 2010 16:41:39 GMT 1
Time is a property of physical matter, my dear chap.
What do I mean? Well, all matter and energy are thought to be the result of vibrational stings and it is proposed that strings vibrate at different frequencies resulting in different types of particles, etc. Now, it is impossible to vibrate unless there exists the dimension of time, so you see, time is a fundamental aspect of reality. Understand?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 16, 2010 16:54:15 GMT 1
The most simple sequence of all is the binary count of a sequence of events. And the only property we need to assign to the event is via a detector that will signal an unambiguous presence or absence of said event. On other words the detector obeys the 'law of the excluded middle'. All you then need to do to count an event is to detect its presence, followed by its absence.And every time it is detected, you add one to your total. That number is your 't' of the equations. And at its most elemental, it is the interval between events. And the ONLY way of measuing this intevcal is by reference to the number of counts in a separate sequence-counter! The 't' of the equations is a relative number! It has no physical independent presence, like mass, or time. Carnyx, you really must stop baiting Olmy in this fashion! You know very well that if he were brighter he would not bite so!
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 16, 2010 17:04:51 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Oct 16, 2010 18:06:53 GMT 1
Olmy, You are being obtuse. If you read Post 1, and onwards, you will see that I have argued about the 't' of the equations ... as being a relative measurement. But reading your continual squibs ... I get the feeling that you have internalised the metaphysical concept of time-as-a-flow fairly completely, and you now are projecting it onto a quite separate set of concepts. This speaks of a kind of inflexibility of intellect, which I shall try to untangle for you. Firstly with regard to your time-as-a-flow concept; i.e that time has a separate existence ... I suggest you read up on Bergson. Here is a good link which gives an overview of his ideas, and hopefully you will find it as fascinating as I did when I first read at 16 when doing physics as part of my apprenticeship. You might like to follow up on the philosophical power of his metaphysics which influenced Kierkegaard, and so the existentialists, and e.g Simone de Beavoir; www.scribd.com/doc/91714/Bergson-and-the-Metaphysics-of-Time But with regard to physics, and the 't' of the equations .. check out the last sentence of the article: "Because of the finite nature of time, reason alone would imply that a measurement should be attainable, but due to the shroud of mystery surrounding its duration, no accurate measurement can be achieved."And so you see, this question of the meaurement of time is at the point of intersection between the metaphysics and the physics. And, the whole framework of Post 1 is to point out the idea that verbal explanations of the clock effect in terms of bendy orthogonality and relativity of absolute time-as-a-flow is a kind of reverse-metaphysics .. rather than physics. And so, a search for an alternative explanation of the clock-experiment at the atomic level might well yield a plausibility at the physical as opposed to a meta-metaphysical explanation, and so could give us new ways of thinking about things. So, in summary , olmy, here it is again. 1. The 't' of the equations is a relative count of events between two separate physical sequences. 2 These events are physical; i.e they involve masses moving distances (aka changes of state) 3. As all masses are affected by accelerations ..then this must somehow alter the comparativerates between sequence counters in different fields To conclude, the expanation that "time is as invariant as mass, and distance .. except when it is not" ......is not entirely convincing, and I for one should like to see more plausible explanations in plain english
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 17, 2010 9:15:44 GMT 1
Olmy, You are being obtuse. LOL Pot-kettle-black. I am not interested in your pseudo-philosophical waffle, neither am I particularly interested in the musings of nineteenth century real philosopher who (given the level of attention you pay to what is said to you and the level of intelligence you have displayed here) you have probably misunderstood anyway. Philosophy is of limited use because there is no objective test of truth. Some philosophers have a talent for asking searching questions and offering new insights. Some just seem to spout rubbish. We know an awful lot more about time now than we did in the nineteenth century. You know, by using science. Creating hypotheses and testing them in the real world. You continue to totally ignore the evidence from the real world that tells us that you are simply wrong. You continue to totally ignore the point that you can't possibly count events unless they are spaced out along some dimension - time (in exactly the way science treats it). You continue to totally ignore all the other phenomena that our approach to space-time explains and accurately predicts. In particular, you continue to totally ignore velocity time dilation. As for your points... 1. That's how it is measured. That is, by comparison, just like mass or distance or temperature or anything else. 2. Often. 3. Your assertion that all mechanical time keeping systems are affected by g remains false. The real evidence, from the real world, tells us otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Oct 17, 2010 11:21:50 GMT 1
Olmy#36
- The weakness in your riposte is the 'often' in your point 2. All detectable events involve a change of position of mass .. in other words a change of energy. So, ALL process that emit detectable events must involve an internal change of ML at the atomic level.
If you could find an exception, then it would be marvellous. Until then, this tiny gap in your argument will admit the potential for alternative explanations.
As for the rest of your stuff I suppose I can wait until you find the exception to the problem of the detectability of an event ... which is at the heart of the idea.
And as for your idea of time being "the space between events" .. are you saying that it is really L all along?
Are you saying that these "spaces between events" .. quite literally non-events .... or nothings .. has a physical existence? That they are not relative, but absolute?
(And for a certain reader's amusement; 'does olmy believe in f- all?')
PS; edit to the hypertext to make the italics work properly
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 17, 2010 14:50:17 GMT 1
Olmy#36 - The weakness in your riposte is the 'often' in your point 2. Actually, it's a trivial distraction (which is probably why you focused on it). It depends exactly what you means and is irrelevant to the main points. So, for the sake of this discussion, I will concede your point of view. Let's just say that all measurements of time depend on movement of something with mass. Everything else I said (that is, ALL the substantive points) remain to be answered. And as for your idea of time being "the space between events" .. are you saying that it is really L all along? Are you saying that these "spaces between events" .. quite literally non-events .... or nothings .. has a physical existence? That they are not relative, but absolute? Once again, if you'd just stop to think for a moment.... We can only count things in space, if they are separated. Now, there may or may not be other 'stuff' in between each thing we are counting but one 'thing' that has to be there is space. So it is with time. We can only count events if they are separated by time. You cannot reduce the "the space between events" to literally nothing because that would mean that the events were separated by nothing and hence not separated at all and impossible to count. I repeat that time is just as 'relative' as space - no more and no less.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Oct 17, 2010 15:21:16 GMT 1
olmy,
How can you know how long the event lasts for? And how long the space lasts for?
I can go and buy a lump of mass, and a length of mass. But I can't do it for time. It has no physical existence!
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 17, 2010 15:47:31 GMT 1
How can you know how long the event lasts for? And how long the space lasts for? In order to know how long an event is, you have to compare it to other events, just like you can only know how far apart things in space are by comparing it to other things. Actually, in science, 'event' means a point in space-time. That is, it has no duration (or extension in space) - it does however require four coordinates to specify it - all of which are related to an arbitrary point (the origin of the coordinate system). We need three numbers to get the location and another to get the time. I can go and buy a lump of mass, and a length of mass. But I can't do it for time. It has no physical existence! You can buy something that has a certain mass or a certain length just as you can buy something that lasts a certain amount of time. No matter how much mass something has or how big it is, it can have no physical existence unless it also exists for some amount of time. I repeat the points I made before (as you continue to ignore them).... You continue to totally ignore the evidence from the real world that tells us that you are simply wrong. You continue to totally ignore all the other phenomena that our approach to space-time explains and accurately predicts. In particular, you continue to totally ignore velocity time dilation.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Oct 17, 2010 16:00:04 GMT 1
olmy
Let's deal with your velocity case where there is an apparent ADT between the clocks when one is moving away horizontally.
As it is moving on the earth's surface at a fixed radius from the centre, the downward 'g' force will be constant. But, there will now be an upward centrifugal force, because the moving clock is describing a curved path. So the overall force on the clock will be slightly less than when it was stationary .. and as a matter of interest the effect of the velocity wiil be equivalent to raising a static clock to a certain height ( i.e. into an area of lower 'g' force.)
Again, and in both cases we see a reduction in the acceleration/force on the innards of the clock.
So. can there be an effect of force at the atomic level which alters the behaviour of the moving mass and could give an alternative explanation of Apparent Time Dilation?
(Personally I believe there might be; and it is probably on some heap of discarded ideas somewhere or other, because it can hardly be original, surely!)
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 17, 2010 16:31:19 GMT 1
olmy Let's deal with your velocity case where there is an apparent ADT between the clocks when one is moving away horizontally. As it is moving on the earth's surface at a fixed radius.... No, it isn't. The result is general and applies to any relative velocity anywhere. Do you know anything at all about this??? It has been checked in the decay rate of muons produced by cosmic rays, that travel vertically and in the GPS system, travelling in orbit. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Muon_lifetimeen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS#Relativity(Personally I believe there might be; and it is probably on some heap of discarded ideas somewhere or other, because it can hardly be original, surely!) Well, yes and no. Most of these effects were predicted by relativity and only observed afterwards. That is one reason why it is so idiotic to be taking the position you do. It requires a massive amount of blind faith to believe that all these, exact, numerical predictions were made by pure coincidence.... This isn't just a matter of time dilation (as I keep saying and you keep ignoring), just take a look at a few of the ways in which special relativity has been checked... math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.htmlThat's before we even get to general relativity and gravitational time dilation......
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Oct 17, 2010 18:40:59 GMT 1
olmy.... the GPS sats are IN ORBIT! They are not travelling in straight lines .. the accelerating gravity and centripetal forces cancel, so they are WEIGHTLESS ... And as for you muon; it is just a bit of an atom that has spalled off, rather like a door of a car that flies off in the event of a total major disintegrating crash. I don't think they have a separate existence. Anyway, you say this ... So now at last we can get on.What could be happening at the level of the atoms? We are looking firstly for an effect where atoms appear to push back against an accelerative force, and then relax and return to 'normal' as it were when the force is removed. Could this 'inertia' as Newton called it, be a kind of 'live' thing? a result say of spin? How could this effect be simulated? In other words could we invent or design a contraption that would mimic this behaviour?
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 18, 2010 7:53:23 GMT 1
carnyx #43 LOL, really, you've gotta laugh! Given two, completely different situations that a very simple theory correctly and accurately describes, you reject it and make up two fairy stories - neither of which actually make any sense! LOL You completely ignored this (what a surprise!)... math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html...but no doubt if I pushed enough on each one, we'd end up with about thirty different nonsense fairy stories, one for each experiment..... You are not doing science, you are not even doing sanity, you are doing blind dogma. Just like the bible literalist who 'knows' that evolution is wrong, so makes up any old idiotic story to 'explain' away any evidence.....
|
|