|
|
|
|
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/23/2007 11:18:18 PM | | and in reading these other posts i'm reminded that flat world theories are similar to big bang theories in that they are the result of a single & radiating source paradigm - subsequently the 'conclusion' is a result of 'how' these think.......which is but a body-centered paradigm in which alternatives can & do exist.......lol, i gotta get out more | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/23/2007 11:31:52 PM | | Here is one thing I don't understand (in terms of the theory of relativity) How can time which is impervious and seperate from space, how can something like a Black hole "suck" in what they call "space/time". Time is Time and no amount of sucking will change that!! I mean even space, how can an objects gravity pull be so immense that it would mess up the space around it which is ....just that ....SPACE . There has to be something to suck in like suns, matter, gas, even light and radiation, but you can't suck NOTHING. There is no such thing I feel as sucking empty space and most certainly there is no such thing as sucking in time. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/24/2007 4:21:21 PM | We are all Time Travelers. It's just very slow and only in one direction! | |
|
rake_
|
Joined: 7/16/2006
Msg: 104 | |
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/24/2007 4:32:49 PM | time is not impervious from space. Without space events cannot occur (at least not within the context of how we define them) and without events time no longer has any meaning. In fact time and space are inextricably connected to one another. All motion is not through space but through spacetime. Think of it this way, as you are moving you are not just moving through space, but you are also moving through time. Even when you are stationary, the earth is rotating on its axis and around the sun, and the solar system is moving with respect to the galaxy and so on....so you are always moving through space and through time. And anything in motion has a velocity and a direction. Now velocity is key here. And im going to ask you to believe me when i tell you that we all travel at the speed of light through both space and time. And since Velocity has a distance component and a time component (i.e. miles per hour) then the velocity vector which is always C, is made up of a component in the space dimensiond and a component in the 1 time dimension. As your speed increases in 3 dimensional space, more of the vector's component goes toward velocity physical space and and less to the time dimension....in theory if you reach the speed of light then the vectors component in the time dimension would be 0.
Now, to qualify why we are always travelling at the speed of light. Well you might think that there is no way in hell that I am going to convince you of this but here goes. Let's say that you are driving down the road with a friend in the passenger sear. Well, according to your friend, you are not moving and your speed is o. But according to the car beside you that you are passing, your speed is say 5 miles/hour. But to the person on the road you are travelling at 40 miles per hour. To the car passing you in the opposite lane you are moving away from them at 80 mi/hour. But why stop there? Compared to the crew of the spaceshuttle orbiting the earth, your car is moving away from them at 32,000 miles per hour. Now let's really extend this out all the way to the farthest galaxies and to them you would be travelling away from them in your car at a speed of light. Since every object travelling in space is moving away from some other object, and since the furthest galaxies are receding away from us at nearly the speed of light, then we must thefore be moving at that velocity. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/25/2007 1:48:57 AM | rake, I see that you are describing relativity from your perspective. And yes, spacetime is always a continuum relationship, at least applicable to our universe; which according to the latest theories the universe is in a state of expansion (in motion).
I will make an attempt to transpose your concept of speed/velocity: In order for an object to attain the maximum speed, the object will require a given amount of external energy, these energy will always be directly proportional to the mass of the object. Light will attain the maximum speed, at least in our comprehension of our universe, because the mass of light represents the infinitesimal amount of the visible 'object'. All these is basically a direct correlation of the most famous equation: E=mC^2. If you analyze the equation, you can determine that the energy (E) will have a tendency to be the square root of the speed of light (C), as the mass tend to zero.
Note: the definition of speed is not the same as the definition of velocity. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/25/2007 7:24:02 PM | | The universal constant is not a speed. It is a ratio. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/25/2007 8:16:18 PM |
The universal constant is not a speed. It is a ratio.
Sir can you support this claim by any chance? | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/25/2007 8:30:14 PM | The universal constant is not a speed. It is a ratio.
Um, dude, speed is a ratio.
More specifically it is the ratio of distance to time. Mathematically it is d/t or units of distance to units of time.
"c" is considered a constant because it is a fixed ratio, in that it does not change. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/25/2007 8:31:46 PM | Um, dude, speed is a ratio.
More specifically it is the ratio of distance to time.
"c" is considered a constant because it is a fixed ratio, in that it does not change.
It is??
I still don't understand how can gravity "manipulate" time and space? | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/25/2007 8:41:48 PM | It is??
OK, it's also a drug but in this instance it is the ratio of units of distance to units of time as in m/sec.
Also referred to as the rate of motion or the rate of change in position.
And OK, "c" is also a letter of the alphabet but in this context it is the speed of light in a vacuum.
There are other universal constants, like "G" the Newtonian constant of gravitation or "h" Planck's constant but we aren't talking about those.
If you have another definition please post it.
edit: OK, the speed of light in practical situations does change but only to become slower (as in when passing through a medium such as glass or water) not faster.
edit again: oh, wait, you were being sarcastic weren't you. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/25/2007 9:01:59 PM | Mungo joe said: "Um, dude, speed is a ratio."
The universe is a ratio;
matter divided by space...the operator is time | |
|
rake_
|
Joined: 7/16/2006
Msg: 112 | |
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/26/2007 5:21:02 AM | | relativity cant be oversimplified. When talking about mass, energy, speed, velocity and momentum, it has to be done in terms of the observers frame of reference (i.e. rest, other) using scalar and vector mechanics otherwise it won't make any sense in terms of energy conservation. For example, E=mC^2 is meaningless when describing light because A) the mass in this equation is inertial mass in the rest frame or simply rest mass which is invariant and not relative to another moving object and B) a photon's rest mass is 0. But it doesnt matter because we know that photons are never at rest and since energy and mass can be described in terms of momentum and gravitational field stress. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/26/2007 8:53:55 AM | Would time exist without human kind to measure it, to construct it?
Would reality exist with out an observer? and how do you know? | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/26/2007 9:29:09 AM | [I still don't understand how can gravity "manipulate" time and space?/]
Time, as in the speed of light, is measured by the speed of light particles through space. Say for example we were to measure the time it would take light particles to travel from the sun of another solar system. Light particles have mass, albiet very small mass, but mass all the same. All objects in space exert gravitational fields. Therefore any light particle passing within the gravitational range of a solar system, a planet or any mass (Many factors determine the strength of gravity) can be influenced by that gravity. If we have two objects A, and B, "x" distance apart. Object A directs a beam of light at object B. Any mass between A and B can deflect the beam of light on a mass to mass basis, furthermore a masses gravitational influence can bend the light beam as well.
A-----------> o _____________>B
e=MC squared, in theory , is sound, but in practice there are other things to consider. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/26/2007 9:42:50 AM |
Um, dude, speed is a ratio.
More specifically it is the ratio of distance to time. Mathematically it is d/t or units of distance to units of time.
"c" is considered a constant because it is a fixed ratio, in that it does not change.
A square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares. A speed is a ratio of distance to time, yes. c is a fixed ratio, yes. But "Speed" is meaningless without stationary. Change stationary, and the ratio remains the same? Explain to me how movement can occur without any frame of referance, and I will concede the "speed" of light is indeed a speed.
Changing units of measure does not change value, be it miles, meters, minutes or months.
The dude. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/26/2007 10:02:19 AM |
Sir can you support this claim by any chance?
No more than I can prove the universe is not "but a dream within a dream". This is the science and philosophy forum, after all, and many of the scientific theories that are out there seem mighty fantastic, compared to the assertion I am making. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/26/2007 10:17:06 AM | Explain to me how movement can occur without any frame of referance, and I will concede the "speed" of light is indeed a speed.
speed of light means light wave passes thru x distance in x time, so it is a speed, the speed is fixed...light doesn't slow down and accelerate, it is always the same unless you have 2 separate expoeriments where light wave has to go thru a bunch of refracting lenses to get to the same distance of straight line as light wave without lenses in between. the light going thru all the lenses will go slower than (distance/time) than the wave without lenses... so they will have achieved different ratios of distance to time even though the light has the same inertial speed.
? | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/26/2007 10:58:33 AM | | x distance in x time measured from a given stationary. Change the motion of the stationary, and the relative speed of the light stays the same. The light can't be changing velocity in order to match the observer, can it? Does the light exist solely for the purpouse of being measured? Seems more likely to be a misconception of the observer, to think of light as many infinitely small (size, not mass) particles in motion. The proximity of so many other "elementary particles" when the light passes through the lens complicates any calculation of speed one might try to make. Is the light slowing down going through the lens, or has the mass bent space? Don't forget, mass and energy are the same thing, just different orientations. | |
|
rake_
|
Joined: 7/16/2006
Msg: 119 | |
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/26/2007 2:17:41 PM |
A speed is a ratio of distance to time, yes. c is a fixed ratio, yes. But "Speed" is meaningless without stationary. Change stationary, and the ratio remains the same? Explain to me how movement can occur without any frame of referance, and I will concede the "speed" of light is indeed a speed.
there is no such thing as a stationary frame of reference because objects are constantly in motion not just through space but through time as well. But that's ok because you don't want a stationary frame of reference because, in principle at least, all frames of reference are equal. As long as there is more than one object in space there is at leat one frame of reference to measure motion, time, events, etc...
I don't think that movement could occur if there was just one object in space because space is not a frame of reference...its space...so if there was a single electron in the universe it would be motionless....of course if it were to emit a photon of light, from the electrons frame of reference it would appear as though that particle of light were travelling at the speed of light, irrespective of the electrons own speed and direction. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/26/2007 4:14:59 PM | "The light can't be changing velocity in order to match the observer, can it?"
well theoretically if you were observing a ray of light whilst travelling at the speed of light you would actually see the wave almost frozen in time...
like this pattern below
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
 | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/26/2007 4:36:12 PM |
well theoretically if you were observing a ray of light whilst travelling at the speed of light you would actually see the wave almost frozen in time...
like this pattern below
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
No. The speed of light is a constant.
It is my speculation that if you were pacing a particular photon (impossible, see Heisenberg's uncertainty principle), you would not recognize it as a photon at all, but rather it would be seen as some other elementary particle. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/26/2007 5:43:04 PM | | Time is a manmade conception; made in order for the mentalist to theorize about an imaginary phenomenon. | |
|
rake_
|
Joined: 7/16/2006
Msg: 123 | |
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/26/2007 6:11:31 PM | The standard model of particle physics makes predictions about the behaviour of particles that is incredibly accurate and many of them have only been detected indirecly by measuring the scattering angles of particles and jets after collisions and yet we are intimately familiar with their properties.
The particle-wave duality of light has been well established and although the EM-waves carried by electric and magnetic fields exibit "wave" like properties, no one knows how that manifests itself physically. Right now calling light a wave really means that it acts like a wave and it can be described mathematically as a wave, but no one knows what it looks like. | |
|
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/26/2007 8:07:19 PM | sometimes individual units of light (photons) behave like particles and sometimes they behave like waves, the double slit experiment showed us that.... if light was a particle, it would behave like matter, right?...well when they shoot a bunch of marbles though a slit onto a screen you will see a pattern on the other side that looks roughly like a straigh tline where the marbles hit the wall...then if you have two slits, you shoot the marbles, you will see two line patterns beside eachother parallel...then you shoot WAVE through using water...it passes thourgh the one slit and makes a line pattern right in the center on the wall, directly in line with the slit ...NOW...you send a wave through with 2 slits...you expect to see two line pattern on wall right?...no, the waves interefere with themsleves after they pass through the other side of the slit wall. This causes a symmetrical interference pattern with many lines on the wall..So why is this? because water moves in waves...so when you shine a light through the 2 slits you would expect to waves also, AND you do see waves...
this all works fine on the macro level, the newtonian level, with things that are big and small, but once they go quantum (sub-atomic...very small), it all facks up, and weird shit starts to happen
When they fire electrons (really small) thru the single slit now they behave like particles, they make one band pattern on the back wall...(like the marbles would)...so when you have TWO slits, they should behave like marbles(matter) and cause two bands like the marbles did..NOPE....when they fire electrons through two slits they interfere with eachother and cause a POSITIVE INTERFERENCE PATTERN like the waves of water did!>.....
so how can an electron behave sometimes like a particle AND sometimes like a wave?...the scientists decided the electron (and when I am saying electron it could also be photon) was leaving the electron-emitter as a particle then when it hit the two slits it split apart and then interfered with itself...this theory would explain the positive interference pattern...IT'S TOO BAD that the scientists were totally wrong...
They decided to induce the electron into showing its true behaviour by shooting only one electron at a time through the double slits...surely since one electron is a particle it would behave like a particle, like matter...either that, or it would undergoe the aformentioned splitting process behave like a wave and cause a positive interference pattern...well, neither was the case as 1)the electrons sent one at a time cumulatively after hundreds of thousnads of electrons were shot one at atime, THE SAME WAVELIKE intereference pattern was caused on the back wall that a wave-like energy would cause..also when the individual elctrons behaviour was observed mathematically the particle would not undergo the splitting process as mentioned in the failed theory but it would undergo TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND RANDOM behaviours each time it passed through one or the othe slits...However, the END RESULT of thousand sof individually shot electrons on the back wall waswas this positive interefeence pattern...in other words, even though each indivual elctron's behaviour was totally random, the cumulative result was as though each elctron KNEW where the other electrons WERE going or HAD gone and ultimatley resulted in the positive interfernce pattern on the back wall...
So, the scientists thought they werre really smart and decided they wrere gong to trick the electron in to showing its behaviour BEFORE it hit the slit...so they put a sensor right before where the electron would hit the 2 slits...IT"S too BAD that when they put the sensor in place the electron would act like a particle...it would go through one or the other slit and cause two straight bands or lines parallel to eachother like the same as a bunch of marbles shot through the 2 slits.....
....but when the REMOVE the sensor...
...the electrons do interfer with eachother and they cause the WAVE-like interference pattern..ONLY WAVES CAN cause this pattern....
...SO, only one conclusion can be drawn from this...the mere act of "observing" the electron cause the elctron to behave like a particle...but when you aren't observing it, it behaves like a wave....! WHich begs the question: Do electrons have a conscious? HOw are they aware of the fact that they are being opbserved?
Is therer some lkind of intereferncve pattern that the sensor causes and reflects off the orbit of the electron or what? I don't freaking know...! HOw can an electron know that it is being observed? HOW?! | |
|
rake_
|
Joined: 7/16/2006
Msg: 125 | |
| What is TIME ??
Posted: 3/26/2007 8:41:28 PM | | ...this horse has been whipped to death for over 80 years and if you ask 10 phycists what causes the wavefunction to collapse you'll get 9 similar but not quite same answers and 1 who cares...the electron is not alive. It's not aware of itself. Its not clayrvoyant and it cant travel in the past. Particle duality and entaglement are one of many features of nature at small distance scales that go against classical thinking...but why should nature be obbligated to behave at these scales as it does in the macro world....what makes it absolutely certain that only waves can cause this pattern, why is it the only possible conclusion? I ask you. The only thing that is certain is that right now, the solution to the measurement problem is outlined in several widely accepted interpretations... | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 26
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 |
|
Home
login 
