Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't know how many times we've seen the same arguments. This debate doesn't go forwards. Sideways at best. I don't think we learn anything new.
Maybe you need to stop seeing it as a debate with winners and losers and rather see it as a discussion where we can all learn something.
The original question, posed by Kerry, was: "Is time a constant?" He's been offered the answer. He isn't satisfied with the answer so he brings up a marathon debate where he presents his opinion as it was "The Truth" and accept no scientific answer that differs from his opinion, presenting no scientific arguments himself.
If this were Spiritual Forum, then I wouldn't object, because if it is his religious belief that time (using his termology) isn't a constant, then it doesn't have to be scientific. Now we're here, discussing science, where a certain degree of scientific discussion is demanded.
Kerry is using his rules of debating "My opinion is The Truth" and "Scientists knows zero", where his debattants are using scientific rules of debating "This is shown and therefore very much probable" and "This is a link to the scientific results". I've tried both parties to use the same set of rules to come to any consensus. If I've failed with this, then the debate will go on, forever and ever, not coming to any conclusion whatsoever.
Do we learn anything out of this debate? Yes, we are, and have the first times the same arguments were persented. But when the arguments are repeated and repeated, over and over again, then we can as well bark to the moon, it doesn't listen.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI disagree. I don't think he is making the claim in the way you present it at all.
The original question, posed by Kerry, was: "Is time a constant?" He's been offered the answer. He isn't satisfied with the answer so he brings up a marathon debate where he presents his opinion as it was "The Truth" and accept no scientific answer that differs from his opinion, presenting no scientific arguments himself.
I think he is genuinely feels that there must be a universal 'now' and incorrectly believes that relativity rules this out. What is wrong with trying to explain to him why relativity does not rule out a universal 'now' and why a universal 'now' is not known to be the case, nor required for a coherent universe?
Why don't you try explaining it, rather than simply demanding scientific backing from him (he doesn't even claim to have any).
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen I was young, i was very sure of my opinion, almost as it was the truth. I genuinely thought that it was possible to divide by zero. My reasoning was something like: They say that we can't draw a square root out of a negative number, but actually we can, by using another set of numbers, the imaginary once. We can divide by zero in the same manner, we can define a number 1/0 and manipulate this as we want in the same kind of manner." I was very persistant with this, and everyone who opposed me I gave them the same tirade "We can, but why don't they let us?"
I disagree. I don't think he is making the claim in the way you present it at all.
I think he is genuinely feels that there must be a universal 'now' and incorrectly believes that relativity rules this out. What is wrong with trying to explain to him why relativity does not rule out a universal 'now' and why a universal 'now' is not known to be the case, ...[text shortened]... than simply demanding scientific backing from him (he doesn't even claim to have any).
I didn't have much skills in mathematics then, but yet I was very suore of my point. Later I learnt more, and now I'm quite embarrassed by my former attitude. Of course we cannot divide by zero, and everyone telling me that we can I show them what the consequences would be if we try. They try everything, and they are very ingenous about finding methods where division by zero is possible.
Now, I recognize me with our friend Kelly. He is very persistant, very reasoning, he is willing to sacrifice every achievement in relativity theory in order to make his opinion stand.
I say that when he study the matter seriously, and is willing to kill his darling in order to take a step forward in the knowledge of the universe, then he will look back with the same embarrasment as mine.
We give him every argument to him, including links, to as why it is impossible to define a universal now, why it is a quality of the very fabric of the space-time continuum that two objects can travel in different 'time-speeds' throught time and space. I cannot give hime more arguments or more clever once than is already presented to him. You can always show a horse to the water, but you cannot force him to drink. If he doesn't want to learn, we cannot persuade him to.
Moreover, he doesn't listen to me. I am in his ignore list. He doesn't ever answer my questions so he can understand his weak points in reasoning. I've tried, and failed.
I think he has give every arguemant he has for his opinion. And he gives us the same arguments over and over again. Like never learns anything. He is very stubborn, like me myself was in my early days. If I would stand still in a faulty opinion, I wouldn't ever go further.
Originally posted by FabianFnasActually, a universal now is not in any way ruled out by relativity as far as I know. I strongly suspect that the absence of a universal now would lead to the possibility of time travel.
We give him every argument to him, including links, to as why it is impossible to define a universal now, why it is a quality of the very fabric of the space-time continuum that two objects can travel in different 'time-speeds' throught time and space.
The mistake you are making is that you are seeing yourself in him, and also attributing his argument to his religious beliefs and thus not trying to understand his point but simply telling him he is wrong without explaining to him why he is wrong.
I made the same mistake early on in the thread of assuming that he was only making the argument for religious reasons, but he called me on it, and was correct to do so.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell, an 'universal now' is not given as a clearcut definition. I've asked him about it, but he won't answer. Neither is 'time shift' or 'out of phase' not been defined properly. I've asked him about it and he won't answer.
Actually, a universal now is not in any way ruled out by relativity as far as I know. I strongly suspect that the absence of a universal now would lead to the possibility of time travel.
The mistake you are making is that you are seeing yourself in him, and also attributing his argument to his religious beliefs and thus not trying to understand his point ...[text shortened]... nly making the argument for religious reasons, but he called me on it, and was correct to do so.
But yes, I recognize myself in him, as I was in my teenage days. I treat him now as I would like to be treated myself by anyone older and more experienced. And I suppose that he blocks himself the same way I did. So everyone must gain his own achievement. He will remember this dialogue when his time comes.
I cannot explain to him better than you all guys are doing. I just give another aspect of the debate itself rather than lose myself into details and hypothize what would happen if his opinion really was The Truth. I've shown him other explanations, I've tried to see it from his side, but guess what - he won't answer.
Originally posted by FabianFnasA universal now exists if and only if for every point in space in the universe there exists a point in time such that that points past is our past and that points future is our future. Most importantly, that point is not in my past or my future.
Well, an 'universal now' is not given as a clearcut definition.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSeems like agood definition.
A universal now exists if and only if for every point in space in the universe there exists a point in time such that that points past is our past and that points future is our future. Most importantly, that point is not in my past or my future.
(A question though: Is your 'now' the same as my 'now' if we are in different gravitational field and/or have different velocities?)
Is Kelly agreeing with this definition?
What about the other definitions? Are those clearly given? If not - do Kelly and others talking about the same thing?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI was thinking about "now" today and was wondering about it how large
A universal now exists if and only if for every point in space in the universe there exists a point in time such that that points past is our past and that points future is our future. Most importantly, that point is not in my past or my future.
or small it is?
I agree with what you wrote, what ever happened before "now" is the
past, and whatever is going to happen after "now" is the future. So if we
were to measure "now" as a period of time, exactly how large/small
amount of time would "now" actually be? Seems like it would have to be
very small, but when we were to apply numbers to it, couldn't we always
come up with numbers even smaller?
Simply a point of interest not trying to setup a point towards this discussion
though I'm sure attempting to answer this will drag the one who answers
this back into the discussion.
Kelly
Originally posted by FabianFnasYes, a universal now is universal. It is also, as far as I know, completely compatible with relativity. Just because time goes faster for one person than another does not mean that one is in the past or future of the other. We can communicate with a gps satellite continuously without any interruption.
Seems like agood definition.
(A question though: Is your 'now' the same as my 'now' if we are in different gravitational field and/or have different velocities?)
What about the other definitions? Are those clearly given? If not - do Kelly and others talking about the same thing?
By 'out of phase' I believe he means that there is no universal now ie your now is different from mine. This could lead to time-travel.
Originally posted by KellyJayI do not think it is known whether time is quantum in nature ie whether it is infinity divisible or has a minimum size. Whatever the case, it is certainly very very small. My computer quite happily operates at about 2 billion operations per second, and each of those operations is a 'now' for the computer.
I was thinking about "now" today and was wondering about it how large
or small it is?
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow do you define "universal now", mathematically?
Yes, a universal now is universal. It is also, as far as I know, completely compatible with relativity. Just because time goes faster for one person than another does not mean that one is in the past or future of the other. We can communicate with a gps satellite continuously without any interruption.
[b]What about the other definitions? Are those clea ...[text shortened]... there is no universal now ie your now is different from mine. This could lead to time-travel.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI did my best above:
How do you define "universal now", mathematically?
A universal now exists if and only if for every point in space in the universe there exists a point in time such that that points past is our past and that points future is our future. Most importantly, that point is not in my past or my future.
I am not sure if that would be any clearer with mathematical formulas. I don't know what the best notation would be either.
Lets try and you can clean it up for me:
Rule 1: for any point P(x,y,z,t) in space time, for every other point in space x1,y1,z1, there exists a point in time t1 with P1(x1,y1,z1,t1) such that the time component of P1 is neither the past nor future of P ie you cannot send information from P to P1 or vice versa.
Rule 2:Further, for any time at x,y,z, there exists a set of points in space-time such that they cover all of space and every point in that set follows rule 1.
I'm finding this really difficult to put into proper words/notation.
Essentially Rule 1 only refers to points not in P's light cone whereas Rule 2 attempts to say that there exists a set of points throughout space time such that their light-cones do not intersect.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have been dwelling on the lenght of time "now" can it be possible that
I do not think it is known whether time is quantum in nature ie whether it is infinity divisible or has a minimum size. Whatever the case, it is certainly very very small. My computer quite happily operates at about 2 billion operations per second, and each of those operations is a 'now' for the computer.
"now" is an absence of time? This is not a leading question to trick anyone,
I have never pondered this before.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadFirst of all, you need to define an intertial frame of reference. So for which frame of reference are you talking about points x,y,z,t?
I did my best above:
[b]A universal now exists if and only if for every point in space in the universe there exists a point in time such that that points past is our past and that points future is our future. Most importantly, that point is not in my past or my future.
I am not sure if that would be any clearer with mathematical formulas. I don't kn ...[text shortened]... re exists a set of points throughout space time such that their light-cones do not intersect.[/b]