| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » A Grand Illusion of Time |
|
Page 5 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Eckard Blumschein |
 Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 7:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 5/11/2005 7:38 PM, Mike wrote:
[quote:6df9e6091e]rie...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept. It requires an intelligent memory...
Peter Riedt
Only time? everything people conceptualize are just that, concepts.
But it is different to say that time is a grand illusion. If it is,
speed cannot be really defined, it is also an illusion. So is then
change in position. Then there is no change, it is an illusion. But
simple observation tells you there is change. Change from day to night
for example requires revolution of the earth. Let us call this amount
of revolution the TIME it takes from day to night. That's no illusion.
Time naturally arises from observation. It is an empirical fact.
[/quote:6df9e6091e]
As far as we restrict to past time.
E. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eckard Blumschein |
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 7:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 5/11/2005 7:37 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
[quote:b19696b025]In modern physics, "time is what a clock measures", and consists of such
_physical_ relationships.
[/quote:b19696b025]
Thank you for clarifying that. No clock measures future time. No
physical relationship is influenced by time to come.
E. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eckard Blumschein |
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 7:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 5/12/2005 12:55 AM, Bill Hobba wrote:
[quote:1064a3286f]... what Feynman explains early on in the lectures - physics is not
semantics.
[/quote:1064a3286f]
Why Feynman of all people? His Stueckelberg time propagates back and
forth at a time. Ordinary grammar is more intelligent than present
physics concerning time.
E. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eckard Blumschein |
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 8:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 5/12/2005 10:37 AM, Harry wrote:
[quote:42f13679bc]You mean to say that physics is only concerned with *observations* of
reality, and not with reality itself.
Feynman expressed this quite well, showing little care about reality itself
when he wrote, following Einstein:
"But if one always *appears* to be running at a different speed with respect
to the other, then so far as the first is concerned the other *is* running
at a different rate." (emphasis his)
[/quote:42f13679bc]
I have a record for reading famous utterances carefully.
Well, consistently repeated observation of something is an important
basis for the reasonable belief in the reality of it.
Nonetheless, a weak point is hidden in the word "always".
I would like to stress that physics should indeed restrict to what is in
principle observable. Future events are definitely not observable in
advance. There is no justification for considering them a reality.
Ordinary people understand this quite well. Physics has to follow suit.
E. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Gregory L. Hansen |
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 8:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <fKmdnaBWB-EUCR7fRVn-hw@conversent.net>,
AllYou! <idaman@conversent.net> wrote:
[quote:95d10581f5]
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:d5vtlh$k8a$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <NPudnTdjAerV_B_fRVn-qQ@conversent.net>,
AllYou! <idaman@conversent.net> wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:428259F9.B9608A2B@hate.spam.net...
"AllYou!" wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42823C85.B977CB6E@hate.spam.net...
riedt1@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept.
[snip crap]
Tell that to radioactive decay half-life.
Your notion of time could be totally eliminated, and nothing would
change WRT
radioactive
decay.
You are horribly wrong. Half-life is a clock. Name a set of physical
conditions that alters the rate of alpha-decay. Relativistic vleocity
vs. an inertial observer won't do it - in fact, it proves my point.
Are you claiming that the intellectual concept of time alters the rate
of alpha-decay?
The concept of time is necessary to recognize that something decays at
all. Otherwise there can be no meaning attached to the concepts of decay
or change or rate. The intellectual concept of time determines the
description of the rate of alpha decay. A different intellectual concept
of time may require a different description of alpha decay. But both
descriptions would refer to the same phenomenon, so one could be mapped to
another, and what we get is not that time is an arbitrary or meaningless
concept, but that we must use a concept of time that is sufficient to
describe the things we see and want to describe.
I agree. The notion of time is invented by man for the use of man. The
only problem I
have is when so-called scientists talk about how time can then affect
anything physical,
or can be affected by anything physical.
[/quote:95d10581f5]
They also talk about how distance can affect things, like the force of
gravity. And don't get me started on forces! Invented concepts, all of
them.
To even begin to talk about what affects anything physical you must create
a model of it, an intellectual invention. Everyone has an intuitive
notion of the passage of time and of spatial extent. That's not something
derived or proven, it's a model we create from sensory experience. But
it's a shared model. We can create clocks and rulers that give rigorous
working definitions and relate things to it. If we say the intensity of
energy (there's another invented concept) from a lump of metal deposited
into a detector decreases with distance, we're relating that to a ruler.
Whatever you want to say the ruler is REALLY measuring, we call it
distance, and we attribute the cause of a reduction in intensity to
distance. And likewise for time-- whatever the woo-woos want to say the
clock is REALLY measuring, we call it time, and when the activity of a
lump of metal decreases in relation to the advance of a clock, or even as
we sit still and discover hunger, thirst, and boredom, we can say
the activity decreases due to the passage of time.
I.e. it's not the intellectual concept of time that changes the activity.
It's the thing that the intellectual concept of time represents that
changes it.
--
"Then they placed the ark of the Lord on the cart; along with the box
containing the golden mice and the images of the hemorrhoids."
-- 1 Samuel 6:11 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| The Ghost In The Machine |
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 9:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In sci.physics, AllYou!
<idaman@conversent.net>
wrote
on Wed, 11 May 2005 15:47:59 -0400
<NPudnTdjAerV_B_fRVn-qQ@conversent.net>:
[quote:55f05cfc46]
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:428259F9.B9608A2B@hate.spam.net...
"AllYou!" wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42823C85.B977CB6E@hate.spam.net...
riedt1@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept.
[snip crap]
Tell that to radioactive decay half-life.
Your notion of time could be totally eliminated, and nothing
would change WRT radioactive decay.
You are horribly wrong. Half-life is a clock. Name a set of physical
conditions that alters the rate of alpha-decay. Relativistic vleocity
vs. an inertial observer won't do it - in fact, it proves my point.
Are you claiming that the intellectual concept of time alters the
rate of alpha-decay?
[/quote:55f05cfc46]
Time is a human concept, however, it is clear that it is connected
to reality.
I should note that half-life isn't a very good clock for individual
atoms, but put a few septillion together and they'd probably do
very well at decaying as per an exponential decay... :-)
The main human innovation is counting the clicks.
--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| AllYou! |
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 9:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message
news:r44cl2-pdg.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
[quote:3941332c38]In sci.physics, AllYou!
idaman@conversent.net
wrote
on Wed, 11 May 2005 15:47:59 -0400
NPudnTdjAerV_B_fRVn-qQ@conversent.net>:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:428259F9.B9608A2B@hate.spam.net...
"AllYou!" wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42823C85.B977CB6E@hate.spam.net...
riedt1@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept.
[snip crap]
Tell that to radioactive decay half-life.
Your notion of time could be totally eliminated, and nothing
would change WRT radioactive decay.
You are horribly wrong. Half-life is a clock. Name a set of physical
conditions that alters the rate of alpha-decay. Relativistic vleocity
vs. an inertial observer won't do it - in fact, it proves my point.
Are you claiming that the intellectual concept of time alters the
rate of alpha-decay?
Time is a human concept, however, it is clear that it is connected
to reality.
[/quote:3941332c38]
That statement, without any elaboration WRT *connected*, is meaningless.
[quote:3941332c38]
I should note that half-life isn't a very good clock for individual
atoms, but put a few septillion together and they'd probably do
very well at decaying as per an exponential decay... :-)
The main human innovation is counting the clicks.
[/quote:3941332c38]
And nature will do quite nicely without this innovation, which is why any statement which
suggests that time affects anything, or that time can be measured, or that time does
anything, does a huge disservice to science. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| AllYou! |
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 9:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Eckard Blumschein" <blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote in message
news:42835C8D.9040801@et.uni-magdeburg.de...
[quote:52707fa83f]On 5/11/2005 7:37 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
In modern physics, "time is what a clock measures", and consists of such
_physical_ relationships.
Thank you for clarifying that. No clock measures future time. No
physical relationship is influenced by time to come.
[/quote:52707fa83f]
No physical relationship is ever influenced by any time. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| digital clock |
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 9:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:d302980d30]No physical relationship is ever influenced by any time.
[/quote:d302980d30]
are you two into an intimal physical relationship
uninfluenced by time? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| digital clock |
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 9:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
feynman had an alchool problem and george einsein did his cousine
a lot of time
why should i trust in them? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Harry |
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 10:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Eckard Blumschein" <blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote in message
news:428355E8.2030506@et.uni-magdeburg.de...
[quote:d7f91ee92c]On 5/11/2005 5:15 PM, AllYou! wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:c6oge.74185$c24.45909@attbi_s72...
riedt1@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept. It requires an intelligent memory (such as
the
human brain) to have relevance.
The universe was hotter, denser and smallar in the past independent
of
humans and what they think.
But what you fail to understand is that the past is nothing but an
intellectual concept.
I merely agree with respect to the notion "the past".
What was is other a memory (intellect required) or an estimate
(calculation required).
Neither of those exist in nature except as a complete construct of the
intellect. Nature
only knows what is. What is physical is only what is.
Dig for fossils in order to get more wise.
[/quote:d7f91ee92c]
Hint: fossiles that don't exist now are useless.
Harald |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Double-A |
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 10:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
[quote:90c967d148]Nick No Baloney Universes do create universes by recycling their
energy
and matter. Our universe was created 22 billion years ago when a
BH
reached its critical mass. We know there are billions and billions
of
black holes immersed in our universe,and each can give birth to a
universe. There are as many universes as flakes of snow in an
endless
storm. Nature deals in very large numbers. Reality is nature creates
in
pairs,and universes are no exception to that rule. This is proven to
me
by Treb who lives in our parallel universe just the thickness of a
membrane away The creation of the very first universe that took
place
eons ago had a different start,but its history is consistent with
ours,and all the others. Reality is I know how it also came to be and
start the wheels rolling.for all the others Bert
[/quote:90c967d148]
Why did there have to be a "first" universe, Bert?
What came before that?
Double-A |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| G=EMC^2 Glazier |
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 10:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hi double-A The first universe was the granddaddy of universes in the
future. In the future right up to our time universes spawned universes
because of their creation of black holes. Nature since the original
black hole has universes being created as fast as light can pass through
an atom. The first universe was created by space energy compressed by
gravity ,and that took eons of time. Gravity and space energy are
intrinsic to space. We are now getting a better idea that space has a
fabric.. Reality is space is the most dynamic part of our
universe. Bert PS The first universe had no big bang |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| AllYou! |
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 11:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:d5vtlh$k8a$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
[quote:edf2540e27]In article <NPudnTdjAerV_B_fRVn-qQ@conversent.net>,
AllYou! <idaman@conversent.net> wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:428259F9.B9608A2B@hate.spam.net...
"AllYou!" wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:42823C85.B977CB6E@hate.spam.net...
riedt1@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
A GRAND ILLUSION OF TIME
Time is a human concept.
[snip crap]
Tell that to radioactive decay half-life.
Your notion of time could be totally eliminated, and nothing would
change WRT
radioactive
decay.
You are horribly wrong. Half-life is a clock. Name a set of physical
conditions that alters the rate of alpha-decay. Relativistic vleocity
vs. an inertial observer won't do it - in fact, it proves my point.
Are you claiming that the intellectual concept of time alters the rate
of alpha-decay?
The concept of time is necessary to recognize that something decays at
all. Otherwise there can be no meaning attached to the concepts of decay
or change or rate. The intellectual concept of time determines the
description of the rate of alpha decay. A different intellectual concept
of time may require a different description of alpha decay. But both
descriptions would refer to the same phenomenon, so one could be mapped to
another, and what we get is not that time is an arbitrary or meaningless
concept, but that we must use a concept of time that is sufficient to
describe the things we see and want to describe.
[/quote:edf2540e27]
I agree. The notion of time is invented by man for the use of man. The only problem I
have is when so-called scientists talk about how time can then affect anything physical,
or can be affected by anything physical. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jan Panteltje |
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 12:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On a sunny day (Thu, 12 May 2005 11:11:08 +0200) it happened "Harry"
<harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in <42831d5e$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>:
[quote:b8c8d40e3a]
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115844641.c93ba664099aeaf111c4eba25748a58e@teranews...
On a sunny day (Wed, 11 May 2005 16:55:40 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in <gOqge.71964$NU4.17381@attbi_s22>:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
eh, WHERE ARE THE GRAVITY WAVES?
See: http://panteltje.com/rotfl.gif
Have you ever calculated the amplitude of Gravity waves for various
sources, Jan? Or even looked up other's calculation?
Dear Sam, I have been to the LIGO site, the calculations are there.
They should have a signal above noise now, but they do not.
For the lazy lurkers, do you have a link handy to the calculation page from
which your claim
follows?
http://www.ligo.org/results/[/quote:b8c8d40e3a]
Read the papers, note, how over time, they adjust to lower expected
'occurrences'.
Scientific fraud.
It should not have been build.
It was build on the promise some effects observed in 6 month.
Now they talk about 10 years.
Somebody did not do the thingy right! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:09 am
|
|