The illusive Nature of Time

SinisterThinking

Junior Member
Messages
73
Digress all you want, but you're digressing from reality.
The effect has been measured millions of times. Literally, given that GPS systems have to compensate for the fact that their satellites aren't as deep in the Earth's gravity well as what they are measuring.

It's actually a given, and I gave you the equation to calculate it, so... fantasize onward with your special world view.
The rest of us will stay here in the real world.

Harte
Unfortunately, the real world would say that an unmeasurable theory is just that. You are correct, it is a given. It is a given from a specific frame of reference. It certainly isn't universal or without flaw. Time dilation isn't necessarily something I would bet the farm on.

And seriously, I am exceptionally polite and patient, all I ask is that you refrain from the caustic speech. Passion and frustration are not compatible.
 

Harte

Senior Member
Messages
4,048
visual reality is subjective as one persons internal model of the external world may not be another's, I think about reality as a computer program. The brain is one big hard drive, disprove simulation theory and you may be correct, but don't disprove it yet say that I am not correct means you don't know.
If a crowd all look at a clock as the second hand goes 360 degrees, the entire crowd will agree they have experienced one minute of time.

If a crowd watches the sky from sunrise to sunset to sunrise again, the entire crowd will agree that they have experienced one day.

That has nothing to do with any individual's perception of how time passes.
That's what measurement units like seconds and days (and feet, inches, etc.) are for.

Harte
 

Harte

Senior Member
Messages
4,048
Unfortunately, the real world would say that an unmeasurable theory is just that. You are correct, it is a given. It is a given from a specific frame of reference. It certainly isn't universal or without flaw. Time dilation isn't necessarily something I would bet the farm on.

And seriously, I am exceptionally polite and patient, all I ask is that you refrain from the caustic speech. Passion and frustration are not compatible.
I'm not sorry if my "speech" offends you. I guess some people react differently to facts, especially when the facts disagree with the universe they prefer to live in.

What part of Relativity do you believe hasn't been, or can't be, measured?

And there will likely never be any scientific theory without flaw. Just as Relativity supplanted (but still contains) Newton's theory, there will certainly be another theory that supplants (but still contains) Relativity.
In fact, I believe Einstein's theory has been refined since his day already.

Lastly, time dilation has been confirmed millions of times by GPS satellite tech (for gravitational time dilation) and thousands of times in particle accelerators (for acceleration time dilation.)

Every time it's measured, it matches perfectly with Einstein's field equations to the furthest decimal point that the measurement can achieve.

Nobody is asking you to bet anything on it, but if you did it would be a sure win.

Harte
 

dimension-1hacker

Active Member
Messages
841
If a crowd all look at a clock as the second hand goes 360 degrees, the entire crowd will agree they have experienced one minute of time.

If a crowd watches the sky from sunrise to sunset to sunrise again, the entire crowd will agree that they have experienced one day.

That has nothing to do with any individual's perception of how time passes.
That's what measurement units like seconds and days (and feet, inches, etc.) are for.

Harte
correction, you perceive a crowd to look at a clock, you associate meaning with the meaningless sound waves that the people in the crowd you perceive to say the same thing when you are just associated meaning with words you do not know the associated the same meaning with or that they said in the first place. Correction, you perceive the clock to be there.

correction, you have an internal model of the external world and last time I checked you don't know weather the senses can be manipulated, and you never "saw" the world", we are brains correct?, therefore the data was sent to your consciousness to observe. read a bit about Descarte's philosophy. I know that sometimes these types of why's and proofs don't cross peoples mind but now that they have if you don't agree try to disprove them.
 

dimension-1hacker

Active Member
Messages
841
I'm not sorry if my "speech" offends you. I guess some people react differently to facts, especially when the facts disagree with the universe they prefer to live in.
Harte
are you talking about yourself or the opposition?
Saying that all science now are theories therefore none are objective facts is a fact that if you were talking about the opposition description as not a fact, which qouting the scientific method your opinion is false. To add, all these ways of measuring might not be completely accurate as many predictions could be catagorized as true based off not the form of measurement being accurate but other factors causing the form of measurement to predict something accurately. ways of Measuring something can be accurate because of unrelated events instead, therefore that is why scientific theories are theories. Full understanding on consciousness is needed first.
 

SinisterThinking

Junior Member
Messages
73
I'm not sorry if my "speech" offends you. I guess some people react differently to facts, especially when the facts disagree with the universe they prefer to live in.

Rest assured, it merely is the rile of your speech that's bothersome.

Once a theory is proven "millions of times" it isn't much of a theory, it can presumed to be fact. The theory is false if it isn't 100% true. In your case, there are more than a couple of problems that reduces itself from the realm of fact. The biggest one is inertia.

And of course it matches perfectly every time because it was done the same every time. Yet, the reality is, time does not change. It's only referential changes in perception. That was proven shortly after the clock test, Why would that be so hard to comprehend? The nano-seconds per day loss of GPS? And if that's the case what did we do with GPS before 2016? Because ultimately you are hanging your hat on a .76 nanosecond interval.

So, I will disagree with you. It certainly isn't because your profundity scares me and facts never scare me. I just think your demeanor is obnoxious at best.

Jamie
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Messages
3,964
is it? prove it!

Force=Weight=Mass x Acceleration. This statement was given to us in my introductory physics class in high school. It was stated as fact. We were introduced to Newtons laws and his famous equation F=MA. We did some lab experiments introducing us to the proportionality between and inertial mass and an inertial acceleration on an incline. The only problem which I realized much later in life was that the proportional relationship in an inertial acceleration was actually between an inertial weight and an inertial acceleration. This you can confirm for yourself during an acceleration in your car. You feel the presence of weight pressing you into the seat in the opposite direction to the cars acceleration.
In fact no method was given to determine an objects inertial mass other than to measure an objects gravitational mass on a balance scale. We were told to use gravitational mass in Newtons equation because it was assumed to be the same as inertial mass with no proof offered. My instructor stated that it was not known whether or not inertial mass and gravitational mass were the same.

Then there is the little observed anomaly with gravity that no one mentioned at all. An object in gravitational free fall within a vacuum experiences no gravitational weight at all. The object is weightless during free fall. So gravitational acceleration doesn't have a proportional relationship with either its weight or mass. The observation doesn't support that assumption. So Newtons laws wouldn't apply to objects experiencing gravitational weight or gravitational acceleration. Please also observe that an object experiencing gravitational weight is usually sitting motionless with respect to the earth. No acceleration is present or measurable on an object experiencing gravitational weight. I just wanted to point out there is a distinct and observable difference between gravitational weight and inertial weight. Also please note that the observations contain observable gravitational weight or inertial weight, not mass!

The final nail in the coffin for mass comes with the balance scale. I pointed out that there is no observable or measurable acceleration on an object experiencing gravitational weight. Yet we were told to multiply the objects gravitational mass by its gravitational acceleration to come up with the objects gravitational weight. Despite the fact that we know through observation that those two gravitational states do not occur on an object at the same time. So let's do it anyway just to hammer that nail all the way in. Just multiply the objects gravitational mass by its gravitational acceleration and we come up with the objects gravitational weight. So one kilogram times 9.8 meters per second squared gives a value of 9.8 newtons of gravitational weight. Yet the balance scale shows one kilogram of mass. We are using the force of gravity to perform the measurement. So one kilogram of mass is equivalent to 9.8 newtons. We know that through observation. Yet we also know the object on the scale is not accelerating. Obviously gravitational weight is not parsable into mass and acceleration. The weight measurement and the mass measurement are equivalent. Seems like a mathematical paradox to me. Since a kilogram does not equal a kilogram times a meter per second squared. But the physical observation says they do. I don't know about you. But I always choose the physical observation as being the fact. Obviously mass and weight are the same thing. Even though we are being deceptively lied to. But why? Must be something about gravity that the controllers of knowledge don't want us to know about.
 

Harte

Senior Member
Messages
4,048
correction, you perceive a crowd to look at a clock, you associate meaning with the meaningless sound waves that the people in the crowd you perceive to say the same thing when you are just associated meaning with words you do not know the associated the same meaning with or that they said in the first place. Correction, you perceive the clock to be there.
There's no need for any communication. There is only one clock and each person sees its second hand go 360 degrees. If asked about it later, each will tell you it went around the entire clock face. Since it's the only clock they're looking at, everyone sees the same thing.
Obviously, this assumes people are paying attention. But I DID say watching a clock.

correction, you have an internal model of the external world and last time I checked you don't know weather the senses can be manipulated, and you never "saw" the world", we are brains correct?, therefore the data was sent to your consciousness to observe. read a bit about Descarte's philosophy. I know that sometimes these types of why's and proofs don't cross peoples mind but now that they have if you don't agree try to disprove them.
Sorry, no. Time dilation happens every, single time a particle is accelerated in a particle accelerator. Particles with very short half lives come into existence and last longer before decay than they would without the acceleration. In fact, in the case of some observed particles, scientists actually rely on time dilation to slow the particle's clock so they even have time to observe it.

If there were no time dilation through gravitation, then you need to explain why clocks on GPS satellites run faster than clocks on Earth. Every reading has to correct for this error.

Regarding the rest of your drivel, solipsism doesn't explain anything. Of course, if you'd prefer that there be no explanation (as I indicated earlier,) then solipsism is your only possible position.

Harte
 

Harte

Senior Member
Messages
4,048
are you talking about yourself or the opposition?
Saying that all science now are theories therefore none are objective facts is a fact that if you were talking about the opposition description as not a fact, which qouting the scientific method your opinion is false.
It's really your own fault that you don't know what the scientific method is.
The ONLY "facts" in science are the observed data.
Theories EXPLAIN those facts.

To add, all these ways of measuring might not be completely accurate as many predictions could be catagorized as true based off not the form of measurement being accurate but other factors causing the form of measurement to predict something accurately. ways of Measuring something can be accurate because of unrelated events instead, therefore that is why scientific theories are theories. Full understanding on consciousness is needed first.
See the above answer about time dilation in accelerators and satellites. You saying that ALL GPS satellite's clocks are off by exactly the same amount? As far as accelerators go, there's not even a measurment necessary, when you can see a particle in an exposure but the particle should have (and does normally) appear and decay faster than you can expose it to film.

Understanding on consciousness would ALSO only be a theory.

Harte
 

dimension-1hacker

Active Member
Messages
841
All I will say is prove it. scientifically speaking, you are your brain and your brain gets data from the external world via your senses which are your ears, nose, eyes, etc. This data is entepreted by neurons before being sent to your mind which perceived that data internally, you are not literally seeing the outside world just an internal model. Before saying that science is the be it and end all, science is a type of philosophy which is the not a theory of everything, only a way to use visual based probality based systems to predict what the likely hood of something occurring multiple times within your internal model. Don't use the science if you want to argue that your senses are accurate, other types of philosophy are for or against that; choose which one you think is correct. Instead of saying a few things from a few theories that you don't explain why are relavent and if you think you did, you did not explain why that statement is true. This is obvious, something that does is not provided a reason for being true, has no reason to be correct. What you described is a thought experiment where you added that each person has to be seeing the same thing, but outside that thought experiment that is an assumption. Before you say I do not know what the scientific method is ask me what I think the scientific method is and prove that you know what it is. You seem to think, correct me if I am incorrect, that anything but your opinion is as you call it "drivel', that there is no alternative explination? correct? You seem to be assuming many things, and not provided many reasons for each opinion to correct, therefore they and the sum of the reasons you stated have no reason to be true; great tautology. Also, you assumed I thought solipsism is correct, yet I provided no proofs for or against. I think everything exists, a multiverse. I and you probally do not know what consciousness is as a neural net interacting does not produce anything but the physical interaction, scientists do not know what consciousness is. Therefore consciousness could do and be anything because nothing can be ruled out and there are an infinite amount of possibilities. The data sent to your consciousness could be manipulated in an infinite amount of ways and or new data is added or subtracted, and no understanding means no possibility can be determined to be more or less likely then any other. also, drivel? insults don't do anything. If you don't like what I wrote then meditate and listen to positive mantra videos while sleeping.

Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so.
Bertrand Russell
 
Last edited:


Top