Originally posted by sonhouseIn this discussion there really isn't a way, only a belief.
So it appears, I just slipped into another time-line accidentally🙂
But what is your answer to that post?
I've given you reasons why I question the belief that it is not time, but some
physical distortion taking place. I don’t believe you can go out of phase
with the rest of the universe and not actually be displaced from it at the same
time. While it has been shown by more people than just me that the material
world can be affected to the point of throwing off timing of devices, I have not
seen anyone or thing time travel except between the ears of some.
Kelly
I believe this post was the answer to yours.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou are totally wrong. There is no such thing as "universal time", nor is there such a thing as "velocity in space". Everything is relative.
One timeline, but as observers progress along the timeline their sense of "local time" - how fast physical events occur with respect to "universal time" will vary with velocity in space.
How fast you experience time relative to someone else depends solely on your relative velocities, not on some special 'ether' or "universal time" concept.
Of course it is a little more complicated when you factor in gravity and the General theory.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo it isn't!
Everything is relative.
The so-called theory of relativity is about what is absolute: The laws of physics and the speed of light in vacuum.
Actually Einstein preferred to call his theory the Theory of Invariants but the journalists kept on talking abut the theory of relativity and that's the name that stuck.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadBy "universal time" I mean "average entropy in the Universe". I'm choosing my words to fit into Kelly's paradigm, and they're not unreasonable words I'm choosing.
You are totally wrong. There is no such thing as "universal time", nor is there such a thing as "velocity in space". Everything is relative.
How fast you experience time relative to someone else depends solely on your relative velocities, not on some special 'ether' or "universal time" concept.
Of course it is a little more complicated when you factor in gravity and the General theory.
For example, Stephen Hawking has referred to "time before time" - that is, that which occurs before the Big Bang, when so-called "time began".
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI really fail to see how "average entropy in the Universe" would fit into your previous post, nor why we should fit Kelly's paradigm when what we are saying is that his paradigm is wrong, or at least not equivalent to the Theory of Relativity.
By "universal time" I mean "average entropy in the Universe". I'm choosing my words to fit into Kelly's paradigm, and they're not unreasonable words I'm choosing.
For example, Stephen Hawking has referred to "time before time" - that is, that which occurs before the Big Bang, when so-called "time began".
I also don't see what you mean by 'velocity in space'. Is this the velocity with respect to "the average velocity of the universe"? Or some similar concept?
My understanding of relativity, is that there is no such thing as zero velocity or measurable velocity, only relative velocity.
4 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere was once a singularity. Entropy approached zero.
I really fail to see how "average entropy in the Universe" would fit into your previous post, nor why we should fit Kelly's paradigm when what we are saying is that his paradigm is wrong, or at least not equivalent to the Theory of Relativity.
I also don't see what you mean by 'velocity in space'. Is this the velocity with respect to "the average velocit there is no such thing as zero velocity or measurable velocity, only relative velocity.
Someday there will be a uniform, dispersed cloud of matter evenly distributed across space. This is known as the "heat death" of the universe. Entropy approaches infinity. Or, there will be some other maximum level of entropy before entropy begins to decrease again ("Big Crunch" ).
Entropy is known as the arrow of time. Time means how far along the universe is in it's transformation from zero entropy to infinite entropy. As we do not know the extent of the universe or even if it is finite, average entropy per unit space (from 0 to infinity) is a measure of "absolute time".
Kelly's paradigm is not wrong; he just doesn't like the terminology that is used.
You're right; "velocity in space" was a poor choice of phrase. I'll have to think about this.
Is it acceleration that makes the one twin age more than the other in the twins paradox? It is, right?
Originally posted by KellyJayThere is a big difference between time dilation due to relative velocity differences or the depth of a gravity well and actual time travel. In neither of those cases would you enter another time like stepping through a time gate from 1960 to 2060.
In this discussion there really isn't a way, only a belief.
I've given you reasons why I question the belief that it is not time, but some
physical distortion taking place. I don’t believe you can go out of phase
with the rest of the universe and not actually be displaced from it at the same
time. While it has been shown by more people than just me ...[text shortened]... ravel except between the ears of some.
Kelly
I believe this post was the answer to yours.
It is more like walking on a loose conveyor belt where some people say are heavier than others and therefore tends to stop the belt but instead the belt bunches up and brings you closer to those in back. Does that analogy make sense?
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIs that so, Kelly? Is the current theory of relativity with all its details correct, in your opinion? Have you changed your mind lately?
Kelly agrees, he just doesn't like calling it "time dilation".
What word do you prefer instead of "time dilation"?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI am not disputing what you are saying, but rate of change in entropy is not equivalent to rate of change in time, all it does is create an arrow.
Entropy is known as the arrow of time.
A photon of light that travels from one side of the universe to another, hardly experiences any change in entropy, yet time still passes for it (or does it, if it is going at c ? )
Is it acceleration that makes the one twin age more than the other in the twins paradox? It is, right?
I believe it is. I think my example of a fast train circling the earth should work whatever the velocity of the earth relative to the sun or relative to the galaxy.
In fact, when calculating the time difference between GPS satellites and earth bound clocks, I believe it is unnecessary to take into account the velocity of earth relative to anything else (which is quite considerable).
I suspect it is not even necessary to take into account the rotation of the earth.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow would a photon experience change in entropy? I believe time does not pass for a photon.
I am not disputing what you are saying, but rate of change in entropy is not equivalent to rate of change in time, all it does is create an arrow.
A photon of light that travels from one side of the universe to another, hardly experiences any change in entropy, yet time still passes for it (or does it, if it is going at c ? )
[b]Is it acceleration t ...[text shortened]... nsiderable).
I suspect it is not even necessary to take into account the rotation of the earth.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadPhotons do not experience time in the sense that physics defines time. They move at the speed of light, so time dilation occurs to the maximum extent, meaning that to a photon, the universe never changes.
I am not disputing what you are saying, but rate of change in entropy is not equivalent to rate of change in time, all it does is create an arrow.
A photon of light that travels from one side of the universe to another, hardly experiences any change in entropy, yet time still passes for it (or does it, if it is going at c ? )
Is it acceleration t nsiderable).
I suspect it is not even necessary to take into account the rotation of the earth.
Now in the sense of "absolute time", it doesn't matter what the photon's immediate entropy is like.
Suppose a photon is created in a nuclear fission reaction. As the photon moves away from the fissioning nucleus, the nucleus breaks up. From the perspective of an observer in the space the nucleus exists, the amount of time that has passed can be measured in the distance the photon has travelled since the reaction. The photon's motion can also be measured in terms of how much the nucleus has broken up. They correlate.
As the photon moves, every point it moves through is correlated to a point in the motion of everything else.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI've stated that before, there is no denying something is happening, but
Kelly agrees, he just doesn't like calling it "time dilation".
is it happening to time or to the material world? Is it some type of material
dilation for lack of a better term for the moment?
Kelly