# What is time and how does it work?

Discussion in 'Time Travel Discussion' started by Opmmur, Jul 1, 2017.

1. ### NaturalPhilosopherJunior Member

Joined:
Jul 24, 2017
Messages:
47
13
time is relative movement, obviously it does.
setup a spaceship race, one travels near a blackhole the other one doesn't, who wins?

amazing to me people ignore the weirdness of all momentum, linear or angular.

2. ### HarteSenior Member

Joined:
Mar 24, 2005
Messages:
2,579
1,386
Depends. Are they racing to the black hole?

Also, I know what you mean by relative movement and time. But that is not time, it's the measurement of time.

Time passes without movement, as evidenced by things like the oxidation of iron.

Besides, there is no such thing as stillness. All motion (velocity) is relative to all other points of reference. A second hand on a clock moves at one second per second to an observer in the same reference frame. But to somebody moving in the same direction as the second hand - at the same speed - the second hand is not moving at all.

Harte

Last edited: Sep 2, 2017

Joined:
Dec 24, 2004
Messages:
2,773
2,239
The problem is this is not empirical knowledge. Crystal oscillators can be made precise enough. GPS has nothing to do with relativity. The military sends a calibration pulse to all satellites at undisclosed intervals. The amount of error accrued is still accurate to within one millimeter of the designated target.

The lensing phenomena about our sun has been shown to be caused by the suns atmosphere. We see the same lensing phenomena on earth when either the sun or the moon are on the horizon.

I can give you an analogy to help you understand why we can't accelerate particles faster than light speed. Consider a runner doing laps around a track. Each time he passes you, you give him a push. At one mile an hour you are able to give him a substantial push. But he keeps going faster each lap around. As a result your pushes become less and less. He reaches 20 miles an hour. As he goes by your push is now just barely a tap on his shoulder. So I guess you could say that the terminal speed of that which is pushed is limited to the speed of the applied push. So there is no resistance to going faster.

Momentum, gravity, time and space are all separate phenomena. Don't confuse them.

One more note. Empirical knowledge is knowledge that is true and real. Something that you have verified for yourself. No faith or belief required.

4. ### NaturalPhilosopherJunior Member

Joined:
Jul 24, 2017
Messages:
47
13
Runners have a loss of energy in the form of friction. Requires input from the runner to overcome it and to also propel himself continually at a constant speed but also more to overcome resistance to acceleration which of course is conserved in the momentum itself. It's like momentum is a battery.

So the calories he's burning and the push he receives both stores in momentum until friction depletes it. Just wait a while until his calories are depleted, lactic acid in his muscles buildup causing them to fail or friction depletes the momentum stored up. Then your small push will be strong again.

Galactic cluster gravitational lensing works pretty well. there's no atmosphere between them in interstellar space.

How can momentum be separate from space(no momentum if not moving in a direction aka space). Gravity is a spatial vector as well, no space, nothing to pull things through it.

The more knowledge that is accumulated....the more we realize the vacuum(space) isn't empty and is a boiling cauldron of energy. Higgs field, virtual photons, virtual pairs, etc.. How could they not have an influence upon objects?

Well known in particle physics labs that the particle is interacting continually with virtual photons in an asymmetric way. Relativists ignore this interaction as pure probability rather than a real interaction. Why there's such a contention about a charge being calculated as infinite or finite. That problem has never been resolved. Still pending.

Last edited: Sep 2, 2017
5. ### NaturalPhilosopherJunior Member

Joined:
Jul 24, 2017
Messages:
47
13
is there loss of atmospheric oxygen when iron oxidizes? Is there a movement of electrons in the oxidation process? Is there movement when the exothermic reaction releases heat?

6. ### NaturalPhilosopherJunior Member

Joined:
Jul 24, 2017
Messages:
47
13
So I guess the answer to this thread discussion is in Higgs Bosons or virtual particle interactions that could maybe cause the relationship between space, matter and photons.

Higgs Bosons is a movement, so are virtual particle interactions.

Joined:
Oct 29, 2015
Messages:
641
310
If you ask google for the definition of time, you'll get "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole". But does time even exist? You see, in a normal world, time controls you. You can not control time... If you want to redo the minute of your life even second, you cannot. The phrase "time waits for no man" is very true, time will not even wait for itself. The point of a time machine though is that now YOU control time... If you want to redo that minute or hour or day or year of your life, you can. But how can you control something that isn't even there? I think the problem with time travel isn't that we can't define time, I mean, just because you can't define something doesn't mean you can't control it. I think the problem with time travel, is how can you control something, that isn't truly there?

Joined:
Dec 24, 2004
Messages:
2,773
2,239
I don't think you understand the analogy I gave you. Maybe read it over and over until it makes more sense to you. I can't make it any clearer.

The reason there is no gravitational lensing is because it has been shown to be caused by the presence of gas. There is lots of gas in interstellar space. I personally don't believe that a gravitational field even exists. Mainly because I haven't come across any empirical facts that show it to be so.

The problem with momentum is that you have to accept the concept of mass. So how do you measure an inertial mass? My physics instructor just said to use gravitational mass. I never did buy that story. And to date no one has ever found a way to measure an inertial mass. WTF! Mass is the foundation of Physics. And no empirical facts exist to show this is even real. So you either decide to abandon ship or go down with the boat. I would recommend abandoning ship. Or sail along side to watch the mistakes being made that hastens its sinking.

At the time I went down with the ship. Not knowing I should have jumped ship. But on the ride down I did pay close attention to what was being hidden. No real empirical knowledge on gravity was ever given. Centrifugal force was declared to be fictional. Very little info on the true nature of inertial force was given. Looks like a coverup.

9. ### NaturalPhilosopherJunior Member

Joined:
Jul 24, 2017
Messages:
47
13
The definition of time is duration. In science vectors are defined as 3 things, 1)direction, 2)magnitude, and 3)duration. When you think about time all you really can come up with is movement. A vector is movement. Imagine if everything on Earth stopped moving for a moment. Would it look identical to time stopping? Of course. The only problem is when you go really fast or near a blackhole all objects stop moving like magic. Why?

If there is nothing to time other than just visible movement then the only way to travel back in time is to make everything in the entire universe to stop moving, slow down, stop then start moving backwards manually(perhaps with a baseball bat, idk). Blackholes and fast spaceships imply there's more to time than just visible movement. Perhaps an invisible one in addition to the normal movement we see.

Last edited: Sep 2, 2017
10. ### NaturalPhilosopherJunior Member

Joined:
Jul 24, 2017
Messages:
47
13
Well Einstein what causes objects to attract each other? Are you implying centrifugal force produces attraction between stellar bodies? Centrifugal force flies outwards repelling objects. Centripetal motion(only found in fluids) causes them to fly together(like down a drain, etc)

The only reason anyone believes in mass is due to energy equivalence. They don't know how to explain mass other than as a scalar value. So I wouldn't worry about it much. Just means the amount of energy in a massless gamma photon is equivalent to a scalar energy equivalent in 1 positron and 1 electron.

I'm sure mass has other behavioral characteristics as yet undiscovered but for now the equivalence math works.

They show mass is real when they do the energy balance sheet for a nuclear explosion. Just means equivalence. So you can call it mass or angular momentum if you like or anything else. Some people say all particles are really swirling vortexes of energy that converts into gamma photons when annihiliated by it's anti-spin antimatter particle.

Mass just means photon energy in a different form that has resistance to acceleration. So when you say it doesn't exist you're saying resistance to acceleration doesn't exist.

Real question is why doesn't a gamma photon have resistance to acceleration just like the particle? Or a particle have no resistance to acceleration like a photon. So when they say a photon is massless that's what they're saying. Same can be said for gravity. It's just a set of behaviors. Stuff accelerates towards each other while experiencing weird time dilation.

Of course this doesn't explain anything. Still doesn't explain the why.

Wait a minute. You wrote: "The problem with momentum is that you have to accept the concept of mass. So how do you measure an inertial mass? My physics instructor just said to use gravitational mass. I never did buy that story. And to date no one has ever found a way to measure an inertial mass. WTF! Mass is the foundation of Physics. And no empirical facts exist to show this is even real. So you either decide to abandon ship or go down with the boat. I would recommend abandoning ship. Or sail along side to watch the mistakes being made that hastens its sinking."

Ya measure inertial mass by how much an object blows up another when stopping suddenly. Or by how many photons an accelerated charged particle in a cyclotron or betatron are emanated. So, measure the gravitational mass(weight) and then accelerate and measure the kinetic energy for it's speed on impact or it's radiation and presto, inertial mass.

Since we don't know how fast the earth is moving in interstellar space exactly(it's a rough estimate) some of our gravitational mass could really be inertial mass but who cares. They're obviously interchangable.

I think I understand what you're saying, no way to measure inertial mass in real time without first slowing it down to measure it's momentum.

Last edited: Sep 2, 2017
Einstein likes this.