Originally posted by sonhouseYes, that is right I think relativity gives us a great deal, but can also mislead.
That'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?
Relativity states quite clearly time goes differently depending on the strength of gravity and your relative velocity. We all know GPS ...[text shortened]... what is wrong with how we handle GPS technology and can you make it better if you are right.
I think GPS are great, I just do not think "TIME" is changing, but the material
universe is and the answers we seek with our GPS are coming out the same
to make the GPS work, which is GREAT. With all due respect I sure as hell can
say tell me about the past, present, and future you do not get to frame my
arguments. Events have either happened in the past, are happening now, or
will happen there are not other options things can surely happen faster or slower
in the now but they all happen there, unless they happened in the past, or have
not yet happened.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut the existence of an all permeating 'present' is not at issue. What is at issue is whether or not time passes at different rates for different observers. You may not realize it, but relativity does not contradict your past/present/future scenario.
Events have either happened in the past, are happening now, or
will happen there are not other options things can surely happen faster or slower
in the now but they all happen there, unless they happened in the past, or have
not yet happened.
Kelly
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhy not? Einstein though it worth several years of his life and his results (time is not constant) revolutionized science.
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.
Originally posted by twhiteheadBecause the discussion has not gone anywhere. It's just standing at the same place, from page one to here.
I am just as serious as Einstein was, so why should the thread not merit 22 pages?
Has the question "Is time a constant?" been answered yet?
Originally posted by KellyJayWe are not trying to say there is no past, present, or future. All we (Einstein, actually) say is time is not immutable, it can flow at different rates depending on local conditions of the universe, IE, velocity or gravity changes.
Yes, that is right I think relativity gives us a great deal, but can also mislead.
I think GPS are great, I just do not think "TIME" is changing, but the material
universe is and the answers we seek with our GPS are coming out the same
to make the GPS work, which is GREAT. With all due respect I sure as hell can
say tell me about the past, present, and ...[text shortened]... but they all happen there, unless they happened in the past, or have
not yet happened.
Kelly
I still don't understand your fundamental disbelief in that idea. What could possibly change in the material that would give us the impression time flow varies? It won't be hotter or colder, thicker or thinner. Are you proposing some kind of transmutation or something? What are you proposing that is changing here? You just say something in 'the material' but just what is that something? Can you formulate that a bit more rigorously? I haven't seen you present one idea past 'material changes'. What do you think changes and do you have any math to back you up?
Originally posted by FabianFnasIt has been answered in different ways. But I don't think Kelly yet understands that relativity does not mean the non existence of a universal 'now'. It does not guarantee the existence of one either. Do you understand what Kelly is trying to say?
Because the discussion has not gone anywhere. It's just standing at the same place, from page one to here.
Has the question "Is time a constant?" been answered yet?
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe gives a question as he wants to know the answer. He gets an answer. He rejects it. He has a better answer himself. So I don't know why he's asking a question, when he knows his answer himself. He obviously only wants to teach us the 'truth' as he sees it.
It has been answered in different ways. But I don't think Kelly yet understands that relativity does not mean the non existence of a universal 'now'. It does not guarantee the existence of one either. Do you understand what Kelly is trying to say?
No, actually, I don't understand what he's trying to say, I don't undersntand his theory. It has a lot of details that is not fitting observations. The current official explanation fits observations much better.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think what KJ is saying is 'this is the world according to KJ and that's how it is, period. No math needed, no experimental data needed, only what I say'
It has been answered in different ways. But I don't think Kelly yet understands that relativity does not mean the non existence of a universal 'now'. It does not guarantee the existence of one either. Do you understand what Kelly is trying to say?
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes it does, as I have been telling you it is like looking at two different
But the existence of an all permeating 'present' is not at issue. What is at issue is whether or not time passes at different rates for different observers. You may not realize it, but relativity does not contradict your past/present/future scenario.
radio stations one is not in sync with the other. The period of time we call
"NOW" is different if we had one moving faster than another, they are
not in sync, if we were to view tiime as if it were a line and we had two
different rates of speed for the period of time we call "NOW" one would be
moving quicker than the other, they would not be in the same place at the
same time!
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI have no problems understanding that two people can have different speed of time, as in the twin paradox (which btw is not a paradox at all).
... if it were a line and we had two different rates of speed for the period of time we call "NOW" one would be moving quicker than the other, they would not be in he same place at the same time!
However I would have great problems if I and another person occupy the same space at the same time. I'm happy that Space is three dimensions.
Originally posted by sonhouseYou are saying one can reach a moment in time quicker than another
We are not trying to say there is no past, present, or future. All we (Einstein, actually) say is time is not immutable, it can flow at different rates depending on local conditions of the universe, IE, velocity or gravity changes.
I still don't understand your fundamental disbelief in that idea. What could possibly change in the material that would give ...[text shortened]... st 'material changes'. What do you think changes and do you have any math to back you up?
which is saying "now" is different for one than another. If now passes
quicker for one than another they are not in sync with one another it would
again be like two different stations on the radiio or TV they do not occupy
the same space at the same time.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't understand the 'sync' part.
If now passes quicker for one than another they are not in sync with one another
Why is it so important to be in sync? We're not sync in space, why should we be so in time? Non-sync works in Space, why not in time?
Please, explain 'sync' and its importance.