# Re-writing Relativity

scottishinnz
Spirituality 21 Feb '07 19:06
1. scottishinnz
Kichigai!
21 Feb '07 19:06
A number of theists here have posited that time exists independently, yet refuse to give evidence for this.

It is a situation contradictory to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, later derivations of the ToR by Hermann Minkowski, who was one of Einstein's teacher in fact.

Here is the challenge. Re-write Relativity. If you want your idea, that time exists separately from space, to be taken seriously, I want your derivations!

So, come on, roll up, roll up! Bring us your formulae, prove Einstein wrong, explain why nuclear reactors and stars work, and we'll treat you seriously.
2. 21 Feb '07 19:18
Originally posted by scottishinnz
A number of theists here have posited that time exists independently, yet refuse to give evidence for this.

It is a situation contradictory to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, later derivations of the ToR by Hermann Minkowski, who was one of Einstein's teacher in fact.

Here is the challenge. Re-write Relativity. If you want your idea, that time ...[text shortened]... e Einstein wrong, explain why nuclear reactors and stars work, and we'll treat you seriously.
I don't know about time being independent, but this is interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/3dsjho
3. Bosse de Nage
ZellulĂ¤rer Automat
21 Feb '07 19:19
Originally posted by scottishinnz
A number of theists here have posited that time exists independently, yet refuse to give evidence for this.
I don't know how anyone can seriously maintain that position.
4. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
21 Feb '07 19:32
I don't know about time being independent, but this is interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/3dsjho
I don't think that's the last word, after all the change they are talking about is one part in 100,000, a bit hard to pin down, you have to measure the parameter at least 100X more accurately than that to filter out noise, don't know if they actually got the measurement down to one part in ten million. So it has to be verified by independent means before such a change in the fine constant is accepted. Even that small a change would knock Relativity off the map, if proven. That has nothing to do with theist's claiming time is independent though.
5. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
21 Feb '07 19:32
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I don't know how anyone can seriously maintain that position.
Of course the answer is they can't.
6. KellyJay
21 Feb '07 19:543 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnz
A number of theists here have posited that time exists independently, yet refuse to give evidence for this.

It is a situation contradictory to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, later derivations of the ToR by Hermann Minkowski, who was one of Einstein's teacher in fact.

Here is the challenge. Re-write Relativity. If you want your idea, that time ...[text shortened]... e Einstein wrong, explain why nuclear reactors and stars work, and we'll treat you seriously.
My argument is simple all or nothing.

You have a start. Where everthing began.
We than have the following:

You have a before. The great nothing since nothing has started.
You have a during. The great everything during the start.
You have an after. The great everything since it is after the start.

So time or no the great nothing or the great everthing.
Can you get everything from nothing? I'd say, no.
Kelly
7. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
21 Feb '07 20:21
Originally posted by KellyJay
My argument is simple all or nothing.

You have a start. Where everthing began.
We than have the following:

You have a before. The great nothing since nothing has started.
You have a during. The great everything during the start.
You have an after. The great everything since it is after the start.

So time or no the great nothing or the great everthing.
Can you get everything from nothing? I'd say, no.
Kelly
That just says there is such a thing as duration. How are you going to differentiate that from saying there is space?
Also how do you account for the fact that GPS satellites receivers HAVE to have programs inside that account for relativity or else the accuracy would be no more than a map?
8. scottishinnz
Kichigai!
21 Feb '07 20:57
Originally posted by KellyJay
My argument is simple all or nothing.

You have a start. Where everthing began.
We than have the following:

You have a before. The great nothing since nothing has started.
You have a during. The great everything during the start.
You have an after. The great everything since it is after the start.

So time or no the great nothing or the great everthing.
Can you get everything from nothing? I'd say, no.
Kelly
No. The point is you don't have a before.
9. 21 Feb '07 21:37
Originally posted by KellyJay
My argument is simple all or nothing.

You have a start. Where everthing began.
We than have the following:

You have a before. The great nothing since nothing has started.
You have a during. The great everything during the start.
You have an after. The great everything since it is after the start.

So time or no the great nothing or the great everthing.
Can you get everything from nothing? I'd say, no.
Kelly
For much of the history of cosmological thought scientists rejected the notion of a beginning to the universe, suggesting instead that the universe was infinite in extent and duration, ie. it had always existed.
Now the Big Bang model changes that notion of course, but the assumption that there is a beginning at all, while well supported by current evidence, is of course an assumption that like all scientific ones, is subject to change.
10. KellyJay
21 Feb '07 21:38
Originally posted by scottishinnz
No. The point is you [b]don't have a before.[/b]
You do not acknowledge a before, yet you acknowledge the start. I'd say you have holes in your beliefs you simply refuse to deal with, it isn't that there isn't a before, only that you don't want to, or better said, cannot deal with it.
Kelly
11. 21 Feb '07 21:451 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay
You do not acknowledge a before, yet you acknowledge the start. I'd say you have holes in your beliefs you simply refuse to deal with, it isn't that there isn't a before, only that you don't want to, or better said, cannot deal with it.
Kelly
It's not a matter of holes, its a matter of causality IMO.

Assuming the big bang was the start of universe, time started when the universe had the big bang, 'before' then time didn't exist, so the whole idea of having a 'before' before the big bang collapses.

How can there possibly be time before time was even created in the first place?

edit: the English language is very clumsy when dealing with this idea.
12. sonhouse
Fast and Curious
21 Feb '07 21:50
Originally posted by scottishinnz
No. The point is you [b]don't have a before.[/b]
I think it will be realized eventually that its only US that didn't have a before. That is to say, in that view, the beginning of our universe was only the zeroing of a LOCAL clock. Time was going on fine, thank you very much, before our local clock got started. So in that view there are many many clocks, maybe an infinite #, all starting off at their local zero, going through the local universe cycle, resetting itself, maybe even restarting after some crunch/rip-tearing event. The point here is there are an infinite number of time cycles, each unique to its own structure/universe.
13. KellyJay
21 Feb '07 22:02
It's not a matter of holes, its a matter of causality IMO.

Assuming the big bang was the start of universe, time started when the universe had the big bang, 'before' then time didn't exist, so the whole idea of having a 'before' before the big bang collapses.

How can there possibly be time before time was even created in the first place?

edit: the English language is very clumsy when dealing with this idea.
I'm not the one pushing time as something that is required to exist within the 'everything' I'm of the opinion it doesn't matter, time is simply a measurement for events so far in this discussion nothing more. I have yet to see anything to suggest time is a force to be dealt with like gravity or electromagnetism, so far it is no different that an 'inch' or the number '5', if it is anything more, define it.
Kelly
14. 21 Feb '07 22:05
The problem is that our thinking itself is limited to dimensional terms. It’s like asking, “What was there ‘before’ there was anything (including the dimension of time), and ‘where?’” Such questions make no sense. (Scotty’s question with regard to spatial dimensionality, as well as time, is spot on, I think.)

I think it was the Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset who said that that is the big philosophical problem: how do you talk about the all-of-all-of-all-of-it when you can’t think outside of “it,” and no analogies are really applicable? The “whole” has no comparatives, and includes all dimensions—even if by the whole, you mean the natural order plus a God; and that is why, once God is included, any questions aimed at the natural cosmos (e.g., about duration, when and where) can also be put to the existence of God.

I don’t think that the notion of “a being” beyond, or unbounded by, all dimensionality, is a coherent concept.
15. KellyJay