north

In principle you can tell if you are in a rotating frame. Not so for inertial motion. But yes, motion is relative. Relativity tells us that.

 

What has been argued here (and elsewhere) is whether time is a consequence of motion. As a logical argument it is flawed, because it is a false dilemma. Logical fallacy = fatal error. As a scientific proposal it has gone nowhere, because no evidence that has been put forth to support the conjecture has survived scrutiny, and no method of falsification has been proposed.

so then your saying that time is a physical force , beyond time as a mathematical concept

prove it ;

prove that time can influence any physical dynamic , without any physical dynamic being involved , so that time is the cause alone of any physical dynamic

not possible

Thread reopened. Tentatively. Stay on topic, people, and within the rules. mooeypoo linked to the speculations policy above. Follow it.

 

 

 

 

Um, no. I don't think anyone here has made any such claim, nor is this present in the standard literature.

 

It's a false dichotomy to conclude that since time doesn't cause motion that motion must cause time.

 

why though ?

 

as I thought no reasonable reponse to my question

what I'm saying is that between the spin of the sun , and that energy from the sun is three dimensional , meaning it is going away from us , as well as it is going towards us and the suns atmosphere

 

would bend any light from behind the sun , from our perspective

You will need to provide more than just whimsey logic game to prove that, north. If you claim there's another phenomena here, or another force, or another "thing", you need to provide evidence.

moo

what I'm putting forth is not based on logic but on reason

do you not agree that the sun is giving off solar plasmic energy at the other side of the sun opposite to us ?

mooeypoo

I didn't mention ether

what I'm saying is that between the spin of the sun , and that energy from the sun is three dimensional , meaning it is going away from us , as well as it is going towards us and the suns atmosphere

would bend any light from behind the sun , from our perspective

most people sometime wonder if what we as humans experience as life every day is real or not

 

who said what we see as reality is not just a dream?

are we really here or are we just more likely to be here than some where else

 

any thoughts?

what " here " do you have to deal with in the end ?

if you were somewhere else , where do you go back to for a drink ?

here

I think that Einstein was wrong about space-time

Merged post follows:

so why do I think this ;

because neither space or time have any substance associated with them

therefore it seems to me that , while accurate to a degree , Einstein's findings have been misinterpreted

for example ;

the light from a star from behind the sun has not been bent because of space-time but because of the matter IN space

Who said movement was dependent on time?

don't know

but many , many , many , many people do

unfortunately

Merged post follows:

... okay, I am completely lost.

 

Use an example. Take an equation, and show us.

why ?

Originally Posted by north

exactly

 

so that the equation is based on the physical dynamics , not on time

It has physical dynamics in it, and it has time in it, so it is based on both.

my point is though , is that , if in the equation you change the time numbers, that will not equate into the change of the physical dynamics of the object or objects involved

Calm down, this isn't a chat room, it's a forum.

true

inotherwords the change in the equation comes before the physical change

No, the change in the equation *represents* the physical change.

exactly

so that the equation is based on the physical dynamics , not on time

time in the equation is a consequence of physical dynamics

just simply changing time in the equation means nothing

well mooeypoo ?

If it's wrong, prove it wrong. If you can't prove it wrong, then until you can, you're wrong.

 

It's really that simple.

okay here goes ;

if the change in time is made in the mathematical equation , will this change alone influence the physical dynamics of a situation ?

inotherwords the change in the equation comes before the physical change

Time was created by humans.

agreed

the problem becomes when some people think that time actually has some sort of substance associated with it

which is wrong of course , but mathematical physics does this , unfortunately

Time is not tangible. Time is nothing. It was created by humans to measure things. You people are thinking too hard.

agreed:D

Originally Posted by north

 

Originally Posted by mooeypoo

Without time there's no movement. Movement occurs when an object has a change of position over time. How can you have that change of position without time? You make no sense, and you are trying - again - to redefine a WELL DEFINED term.

 

 

 

and if I didn't consider or measure any of what you mention here would not the out-come still be the same ?

 

yes it would , my point , AGAIN

If you didn't measure or consider anything, it wouldn't happen. If it happened, it happened in relation to time. Your point is void.

really

so if I let two tires roll down a hill ( and they were let go at the same moment), and one tire passes the other its about time ?

I believe he is wrong about Gravity and Space Time.

agreed

I dont see a necessity for theorys to have mathmatics to back them up, i dont even see how math can back up a theory an any way other than helping to show what the theory explains.

 

Im probably really wrong, and i dont mean to sound stupid, i was just wondering.

 

Thanks.

hmm...

a theory needs imagination

mathematics is guided by the imagination

Clocks slow. I dont know that the fabric of time changes.

time has NO " fabric " in the first place

Without time there's no movement. Movement occurs when an object has a change of position over time. How can you have that change of position without time? You make no sense, and you are trying - again - to redefine a WELL DEFINED term.

 

 

 

Right, the human has longer legs, and therefore faster velocity, and will get there faster.

 

Velocity is movement. And check this out:

[math]V = \frac{dx}{dt}[/math]

Velocity is defined as the change of location (dx) in relation to time (dt)! so there *IS* a consideration of time there, isn't there?

 

and if I didn't consider or measure any of what you mention here would not the out-come still be the same ?

 

yes it would , my point , AGAIN

north, you make no sense.

 

You are using arbitrary meanings to well defined definitions and then expect everyone to agree with your logic.

 

Movement is well defined.

English language is well defined, too.

 

my point is , is that you don't have to refine movement to relise that a movement has happened and therefore makes time irrelevent

 

take the tortise and a Human and both must go from A to B , the quicker wins , no abnormalites exist within the Human or tortise nor on the course , everything is fair and on the up and up

 

obviously the Human gets there first , all things being equal

 

 

 

 

 

 

No offense, north, but maybe the problem is with your (nonexistent) sentence structures. I don't understand what you mean, and I don't get your points. You made points based on flawed definitions and now you seem to insist they're still valid.. I don't understand any of your subsequent points. Since you're the one making the claim, it should be your concern to make sure people get what you mean.

 

In other words: You're the one responsible in making yourself clear if you want anyone to accept what you're saying, not the other way around, since you're the one CLAIMING these things.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't even know how to start answering your points, since I don't get what you're trying to say.

 

~moo

 

then try one point at a time

time is how we define any movement , time is a measurement of how , why and or what is the cause of movement

 

but irregardless of the definition which using time gives us , the movement between objects and their interaction goes on , as well as the atomic inner movement ( oscillations ) goes on regardless of any measurement applied by us

 

the movement within or without is purely because of the Nature of the object(s) themselves , either in their interactions with other objects or within themselves and has nothing to do with time at all

I don't understand what you wrote here..

why not it ? it seems plain to me

And what do you mean "the nature of the objects themselves"?? That requires some further explanation.

the Nature of the object(s) is what it does purely because of what it is given , whether it be chemical , atomic , size and energy and any combination thereof

Okay, look. oobapalloobabamba may be independent of time, if you want it to be, because it is undefined - and therefore can be redefined by you (yay!). Same with googalaratatatala and boobobaablalalabla. Feel free to fill in their definitions and then relate to them as independent of time.

 

Motion, however, is DEFINED already.

It already HAS a definition. It is dependent on time.

 

You can't just claim it's independent and get it done with. It makes no sense. Motion is defined. "The act or process of changing position or place." (source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/motion). This change is dependent on time (otherwise you have no change, you have a static situation == no motion!).

 

so what do you call motion that is undefined ?

 

surely you can see that if we go back enough in history

 

that people noticed that something round went faster down hill than something flat

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=464000&postcount=23

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=463899&postcount=20

 

You've replied to these posts. So I assume you actually read them?

had to reread them

look my point is and still stands

movement of any type is independent of time

time is how we define any movement , time is a measurement of how , why and or what is the cause of movement

but irregardless of the definition which using time gives us , the movement between objects and their interaction goes on , as well as the atomic inner movement ( oscillations ) goes on regardless of any measurement applied by us

the movement within or without is purely because of the Nature of the object(s) themselves , either in their interactions with other objects or within themselves and has nothing to do with time at all

so in the end time is not real

you can't use time and time alone , to influence any physical dynamic behaviour of any object within or any interactions between objects

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

A modern atomic clock (say a fountain clock) is not based on movement' date=' it is based on oscillations between quantum states, there is NO movement involved in the oscillations.

 

You try and remove movement because that induces some noise in the system, some error.

 

Swansont has explained this previously to you. If you do not understand what we mean, please ask and we will happily direct you towards some reading material about it, and answer any questions you have.[/quote']

 

first Swansont post #

It is not mathematically true and practically untrue, you take a photo with a very very very short shutter time, and it magically becomes practically true.

what does ?

As has already been explained to you by swansont, movement is NOT a requirement of time. It is in fact a problem they try and remove in atomic clocks.

you can't do it it

an atomic clock is based on movement within the atomics of the atoms in the clock , which you base the clock on

why would you try to even remove movement from the atomic clock ?

it is the movement within say a ciesium clock that gives consistent time , hence why it is used

Merged post follows:

yes but the movement came first

 

THAT is my point

 

the movement came from , in this case two objects

 

time is a consequence , not the essence of the movement

For the billionth time' date=' north, [b']movement is defined by time[/b].

 

but I'm not trying to define movement with time

 

all I'm saying is that the fundamental movement by object(s) is independent of time