Jump to content

north

Senior Members
  • Posts

    276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by north

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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 ?

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. I think that Einstein was wrong about space-time


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged

    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

  7. Who said movement was dependent on time?

     

    don't know

     

    but many , many , many , many people do

     

    unfortunately


    Merged post follows:

    Consecutive posts merged
    ... okay, I am completely lost.

     

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

     

    why ?

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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 ?

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18.  

    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

  19.  

     

     

    ...

     

     

     

    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 #

  20. 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:

    Consecutive posts merged
    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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.