dad

 

No. I just wondered where relativity came into it.

Me too.

 

I don't really understand the question. Relativity is about the relationship between measurements made by observers in different frames of reference. So someone in a different frame of reference could have measured my lifespan as more or less than I do.

So time in your conception depends on other frames of reference.

This is really philosophy rather than science. But, yes, I think we all make assumptions like this about the world around us. We assume that the Sun will rise tomorrow and apples will fall from trees, until we have a reason to think otherwise.

 

So science also works on certain assumptions. But those beliefs and assumptions would be (are) modified by evidence, when it is available. If possible, the assumptions are tested directly. sometimes that isn't possible.

 

Is this surprising to you?

The issue is where it actually works and where it is belief.

 

I don't find any evidence for god(s) or unicorns either, so the default is they don't exist.

 

Great so we can add that to the set of things you have no evidence for. I do. But I won't get into that here.

How is that a belief? It looks more like absence of belief due to absence of evidence.

 

To assume something unknown without knowing, and without evidence is belief.

 

 

Neither here nor there, I suppose, since you reveal that you weren't interested in learning anything anyway.

 

Well, I know that Einstein felt time was a fourth dimension. Now for proof..? I think it is a lot more.

 

Yes, and yes.

Let's say you are 40 years old. That time is due to relativity?

 

Mostly, it's been never finding evidence that the laws of physics were ever any different in the far past on Earth. That's how science works, looking at evidence. If there is none, we assume the answer is no, until something shows us differently.

Excellent, you admit it is just belief and assumption.

Time in general relativity is modelled as the fourth dimension of the space-time manifold. I don't know how it is represented in quantum mechanics.

 

As for reality, that is a matter for philosophers and you will probably find as many opinions as there are philosophers.

OK. So you feel reality is outside of the realm of science, and we should ask others. As for relativity, time is 'modeled' a certain way. So it seems that what you offer is a limited concept and definition of time.

There is no absolute time. It is a frame of reference which serves as the fourth dimension in spacetime.

In the theory of relativity, yes. Guess there is no way to test time far away?

If so, what is the evidence?

What is time according to science or in reality? I don't think they really know, do they? Let's see.

those equations use the invariance of the speed of light. In simple terms it measures how long it takes light to reach us. The amount of time.

 

Based on what?

 

What did you think it meant? Or did you even bother reading it?

 

Show us how you think you know time exists in the far universe. The issue is what the basis is. Not listening to how much time someone claims something takes to move.

 

If time did not exist at some mystical point, light from that point would never reach us.

 

 

 

Another lame point and silly baseless claim. Who says light cannot travel in an area where time may be different than here?? Makes no sense. If time were woven in space in a way where (for example) there was less time in the mix...then it would take less time as we know it to move there...(not here)

No you obviously don't have a good understanding of GR, because it does apply.

 

No. It doesn't. Not as far as whether time exists there and exists the same as here.

I could show you mathematics but it would probably go over your head.

Particularly if you didn't understand the basic equations I posted.

 

 

 

You have no math that even addresses the issue. Face it. The math has to stand for something..represent something...you know...speed of light..etc... the issue is what the symbols represent, not whether you can spam a page of bogus math.

AH I see you have no knowledge of the basic relativity formulas.

 

Well here is a paper that measures and tests relativity using Pulsars at various distances.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/download/lrr-2003-5Color.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjMnpGPhobMAhVO42MKHUJUB9MQFggkMAY&usg=AFQjCNFcdj07CFxj96F1IoobgMgdHVS0vw

Relativity does not apply to time in deep space unless it existed. You are trying to obfuscate.

We measure rate of change by the following relativity rules.

 

Lorentz transformation.

First two postulates.

1) the results of movement in different frames must be identical

2) light travels by a constant speed c in a vacuum in all frames.

 

No way to know how much time light takes to do anything in the far universe...irrelevant!! You need to prove time exists the same there first.

 

Consider 2 linear axes x (moving with constant velocity and [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] (at rest) with x moving in constant velocity v in the positive [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] direction.

Time increments measured as a coordinate as dt and [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] using two identical clocks. Neither [latex]dt,d\acute{t}[/latex] or [latex]dx,d\acute{x}[/latex] are invariant. They do not obey postulate 1.

A linear transformation between primed and unprimed coordinates above

in space time ds between two events is

[latex]ds^2=c^2t^2=c^2dt-dx^2=c^2\acute{t}^2-d\acute{x}^2[/latex]

 

 

 

You cannot use identical clocks. Not in deep space. You may see two things move, but that does not tell us time exists as we know it on earth in any way at all.

 

 

Invoking speed of light postulate 2.

[latex]d\acute{x}=\gamma(dx-vdt), cd\acute{t}=\gamma cdt-\frac{dx}{c}[/latex]

Where [latex]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}[/latex]

Time dilation

dt=proper time ds=line element

since [latex]d\acute{t}^2=dt^2[/latex] is invariant.

an observer at rest records consecutive clock ticks seperated by space time interval [latex]dt=d\acute{t}[/latex] she receives clock ticks from the x direction separated by the time interval dt and the space interval dx=vdt.

[latex]dt=d\acute{t}^2=\sqrt{dt^2-\frac{dx^2}{c^2}}=\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}dt[/latex]

so the two inertial coordinate systems are related by the lorentz transformation

[latex]dt=\frac{d\acute{t}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}=\gamma d\acute{t}[/latex]

So the time interval dt is longer than interval [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex]

The above is what I would expect to see when one presents his own equation. The above isn't a full derivitave.

Several missing steps. It was for another post. However it provides a better explanation of the Lorentz transformations than merely posting a formula.

If your not using Lorentz then you need to define the coordinate transformation rules.

Here is relativity of simultaneaty coordinate transformation in Lorentz.

[latex]\acute{t}=\frac{t-vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex]

[latex]\acute{x}=\frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex]

[latex]\acute{y}=y[/latex]

[latex]\acute{z}=z[/latex]

 

 

Now if you want to try and relate some of this seemingly random gibberish to the issue, try to do so. One cannot use the Lorentz transformation in deep space for time determinations. You have movement relative to other things THERE. Not here.

We see stars, moving, exploding, we can measure changes in plasma, such as the CMB.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I said movement does not mean time as we know it exactly exists. That is obvious.Stop trolling.

I already supplied that, it's called observational evidence. We measure objects and events changing regardless of where we look with our most powerful telescopes.

What deceptive falsehood. You observed nothing that involves proving time exists exactly as it does here at all. You also do not measure objects as far as size or distance unless time exists there.

Your accusing that to be vaque balderdash? Did you not think your question better qualifies?

 

No, since science assumes time exists we have a right to ask if they know. Your vague assertions are no good unless you tell us what exactly they are.

 

 

If time did not exist there would be no change.

 

 

Says who??? Who made that rule? Time does not have to be woven into space the same way as we know it here in order to have things move!!!! That is ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

We can observe events roughly 13 billion light years away and closer.

 

Only based on assuming time exists! You have yet to evidence that in any way at all. Until you do, you have NO way of determining ages.

 

What evidence do you have time doesn't exist elsewhere?

 

 

 

Only those who claim to know one way or the other need show evidence and boy do you need to show some!!!

We know we see a rate of change when we observe events regardless of how far we look. We can measure those change of events.

 

Great so show us how you measure time in the universe!!!?

Those measutements correspond to relativity, precisely.

That isn't based on religion but direct observational evidence

 

 

Vague balderdash. What measure for time existing do you have?

 

 

The (observable) universe appears to behave the same everywhere that we can see.

You thought you could see time?? How would something behave if time was, say, less in the space time mix than here? If there was less or no time how could anything take the same time we know to do anything!? I think a better way to state what you were trying to say would be something like 'here in fishbowl earth, to us, it looks a certain way out there'.

 

 

 

That includes the existence of the same elements, forming stars and galaxies in the same way, creating the same spectral frequencies, evolving in the same way, etc.

 

 

Well, that is overstated. Yes we have a lot of the same elements, but our ability to see and may not be such as that we see and detect all that really is out there. Regardless of that though that does not address the issue of whether time exists out there.

 

 

 

 

We have models that describe this, these models are consistent with what we observe.

 

 

You have models that use earth time and space. The consistency is relative to the place we are...where time does exist. Naturally to us it looks or seems like time golly gee just must be the same out there.

Are you actually interested in the science, or did you just want an excuse to proclaim that cosmology is a religion?

You have the opportunity to show cosmology is more than that. A big fail so far. I do understand that it is a sensitive area for many, to have to face the truth science is a belief system only.

What reason is there for thinking that time is not the same in deep space?

 

Forget what we think. What do we know?

The reason, for the third time, is that there's no evidence to suggest anything different.

That is not a reason. What evidence could there be that time existed the same in deep space? You really really are preaching pure religion here.

There's no evidence to suggest that time isn't the same everywhere, so why do you think it wouldn't be the same throughout the Universe?

 

 

There's no evidence to suggest that time is the same everywhere, so why do you think it would be the same throughout the Universe? Unless you have some real solid reasons, we will see that you do not know.

 

What train of thought inspired you to ask the question in the OP?

 

 

 

I find it better to deal with what is known, rather than religion labeled as science.

 

 

 

Surely you must have a reason for thinking that time might not be the same across the Universe, don't you? What's that reason?

 

 

Surely you must have a reason for thinking that time might be the same across the Universe, don't you? What's that reason? If you have none it will remain a belief only. Funny thing is that this belief underlies cosmology and all it tells us about the universe.

Oh... I get it. The Universe is only 6000 years old, right?

If you do not know whether time exists in the universe how would you know that?

There's no evidence to suggest otherwise. Why do you think there would be?

That is irrelevant. The issue is whether you have any evidence time exists and exists as we know it here or not. It doesn't matter what you ans I think. For a year to be a year in deep space we need time and need it exactly as we have it here. Otherwise a year could be equal to a minute, a second, or etc etc. Unknown. That would mean light years are useless units. That would mean the universe in not billions of years old either of course.

Why on Earth do you think time doesn't exist? Where did you get such a bizarre idea?

I never made any claim. I asked if we know.

Does time as we know it exist, or exist exactly the same as on and near earth? This may be unknown, so here is your chance to prove...or rather support with solid evidences that is does!

If time does not exist, that means we do not know the distances to any far star. After all we need time for light to travel..light years etc etc. That would mean cosmology is basically a religion, or belief system only.