1 edit
Originally posted by amolv06Well, certainly you don't need time for every physical process in the universe. But if you throw away time in every equation there is, then what kind of universe would you have? A rather fixed and dull universe if I might think so. Can life be there? No. Can any observer be there? No. Because every interaction with anything else need time.
I think the point is though that you still need a working framework to model the universe. From what I understand, Barbour claims this can be done without the time dimension. I haven't heard of anyone make the claim that this can be done without the spatial dimensions.
Another thing I learned in the article is that the general idea of Barbour's work has ...[text shortened]... 0 years.
While I don't buy what the article says, it's an interesting read nevertheless.
Think of a universe without time. I cannot.
Think of a universe without space. I cannot.
Think of a universe without matter. That I can.
I give the article a shot. When I have time... 😉
Originally posted by amolv06I read it a little while ago, I'll write about it later.
KellyJay,
I have made a rather lengthy post on my blog discussing the issue of time dilation. I have made my case for why it is time that should be considered to be dilating, rather than anything else, to the best of my ability. I apologize for the length, but it was necessary to sufficiently present my case. While of course you have no obligation to read ...[text shortened]... elow:
http://diaryofaphysicsstudent.blogspot.com/2010/04/time-and-lorentz-transformation.html
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI have not read the whole thread, only the first couple of pages, so I don't know if this book has been mentioned but I am currently reading "Why E=MC^2 (and why we should care)" by Brian Cox and someone else.
I read it a little while ago, I'll write about it later.
Kelly
The first part of the book goes into all this kind of stuff. I gather the constant speed of light for any observer comes out of Maxwell's equations and I admit I don't really know the details of that.
The bit I have got to is explained very well and I gather that everything is moving at a constant speed through SpaceTime but some things use more of their speed to move in the Time axis and others use more to move through the space axis. To preserve causality, the fastest it is possible to move through these axis is at 45 degrees and that is the speed of light in a vaccuum.
I am just beginning to get to grips with the concepts.
Basically, you need to read some suitable books or papers on the subject and spend some effort. You won't get an in-depth, well written explanation on a site like this.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinOoooh that's a neat explanation!
I have not read the whole thread, only the first couple of pages, so I don't know if this book has been mentioned but I am currently reading "Why E=MC^2 (and why we should care)" by Brian Cox and someone else.
The first part of the book goes into all this kind of stuff. I gather the constant speed of light for any observer comes out of Maxwell's equation ...[text shortened]... . You won't get an in-depth, well written explanation on a site like this.
--- Penguin.
1 edit
Originally posted by PenguinYup. The world line of a particle moves at the angle arctan(1/v) with respect to the space axis. As was being discussed earlier, the speed of light in this scenario is 1. arctan(1) = 45 of course, and since nothing can go faster than light, nothing can have an angle less than 45.
I have not read the whole thread, only the first couple of pages, so I don't know if this book has been mentioned but I am currently reading "Why E=MC^2 (and why we should care)" by Brian Cox and someone else.
The first part of the book goes into all this kind of stuff. I gather the constant speed of light for any observer comes out of Maxwell's equation . You won't get an in-depth, well written explanation on a site like this.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by amolv06Right off the bat I have to disagree with your opening line.
KellyJay,
I have made a rather lengthy post on my blog discussing the issue of time dilation. I have made my case for why it is time that should be considered to be dilating, rather than anything else, to the best of my ability. I apologize for the length, but it was necessary to sufficiently present my case. While of course you have no obligation to read ...[text shortened]... elow:
http://diaryofaphysicsstudent.blogspot.com/2010/04/time-and-lorentz-transformation.html
“T is the time interval of the period, L is the length of the pendulum, and g is the acceleration due to gravity.”
Time is much more than an interval of a period, our marking it pin points a select
portion of time, it isn’t time itself. This is no different than saying Monday on a
calendar is a week because it is a part of a week, nor is it a calendar because it is
part of the calendar, it’s neither a week nor a calendar if you follow my meaning.
Time consists of three parts that we deal with at all times past, present, and future
each of those holds unique properties and are self explanatory with the past as all
that has gone on before, now being the present, and the future that which is to
come all three completely differs from each other, they never mix by definition
except in great science fiction.
Do we call time the clicks of a clock? The clicks of a clock are our marking of time,
not time itself and it is only used as a marking of time, because its predictability.
How about if we use something that oscillates instead of ticks to mark time that is
supposed to be more consistent, is the device oscillation time or a marking of
time? So if we can alter through electronic or some thermo mechanical means
cause both the ticks on a clock to vary in its frequency or the oscillation of a
device to vary are we changing time or are we changing our devices? A period
describes well a select portion of time under review, but do not mistake it for time
itself it is a variable within an equation; however, the practicality of our results will
vary allowing our mathematics to give us some predictability as our clocks do by
ticking and our oscillating devices do by oscillating, and I suppose our swings
of pendulum as well.
“In this post, we will not worry about what time is. This is a question for philosophers. Rather, lets worry about how to measure time.”
After what I said above I believe you will see that this point which you choose
to gloss over is key to my view that time itself isn’t being affected by the various
stresses we apply to the pendulum. Since my full point is that all events only
happen in the point in time “now” all events that have happened have done so in
the past and those about to happen are in the future. So if we alter what is now
occurring to our pendulum we are showing the affects upon the pendulum it is not
time that is being altered, all the calculations that you have presented is describing
our pendulum’s variation not times.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIt's all well and good for you to have a position like that on the subject of time, but as far as I can see it's just an opinion, not based in any kind of theory other than 'this is how it is'. Give me something here besides that.
Right off the bat I have to disagree with your opening line.
“T is the time interval of the period, L is the length of the pendulum, and g is the acceleration due to gravity.”
Time is much more than an interval of a period, our marking it pin points a select
portion of time, it isn’t time itself. This is no different than saying Monday on a
calendar ...[text shortened]... e calculations that you have presented is describing
our pendulum’s variation not times.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseI am very surprised that this thread has reached page 22.
It's all well and good for you to have a position like that on the subject of time, but as far as I can see it's just an opinion, not based in any kind of theory other than 'this is how it is'. Give me something here besides that.
The question that started this thread was "Is time a constant?".
That question doesn't really merit 22 pages of discussing.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI agree. This is complete madnesss!
I am very surprised that this thread has reached page 22.
The question that started this thread was "Is time a constant?".
That question doesn't really merit 22 pages of discussing.
Constant speed is metres per second.
Constant flow is litres per second.
Constant time is .... seconds per second?
Totally meaningless question.
Originally posted by sonhouseI guess if you can show me how the past, present, and future can be other than
It's all well and good for you to have a position like that on the subject of time, but as far as I can see it's just an opinion, not based in any kind of theory other than 'this is how it is'. Give me something here besides that.
what they are we can talk.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's not an answer and you know it. You seem to think time is invariant even though there is scientific evidence starting with relativity which started the whole thing off. I assume then you think relativity is bonkers?
I guess if you can show me how the past, present, and future can be other than
what they are we can talk.
Kelly
Relativity states quite clearly time goes differently depending on the strength of gravity and your relative velocity. We all know GPS accuracy directly follows relativity and would not work without relativistic corrections to the flow of time.
So you don't agree with that, give us something we can test, equations of state or something, don't just say 'when you can tell me about the past, present, and future, etc.
Tell us exactly in equations what is wrong with how we handle GPS technology and can you make it better if you are right.
Originally posted by sonhouseWe all have opinions, mine is wrapped around time being divided into three parts
It's all well and good for you to have a position like that on the subject of time, but as far as I can see it's just an opinion, not based in any kind of theory other than 'this is how it is'. Give me something here besides that.
which is past, present, and future with the three never mixing. We mark time by
several means, but our marking time does not "make time" our marking time does
not even define it, it is simply our trying to track it, what I'm saying here is our
tracking methods get altered which is not time itself, or any "thing" and all "things"
get altered during some stresses, again this isn't time changing, nothing leaves
the "now" when that happens.
Kelly