north

The falcon evolved to do these relative-velocity measurements in his head, that's how he's ABLE to catch the pigeon, north.

 

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

Originally Posted by north

and the observation is based on movement , which gives the ability to measure

Which you only have because there is a difference in time. If you consider ONLY t=t_1 then you cannot observe movement.

 

while that maybe mathematically true practically it is untrue

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Actually this can be done. Muon decay is observed to be different in the muon's rest frame compared to a muon moving at a relativistic speed in the measuring rest frame. This has been observed experimentally many times, for lots of different decays.

 

so again movement matters

Originally Posted by north

your brain is not calculating velocities, who knew velocities at that time period and who cared .

 

it simply was that one bird was faster than another purely by observations

 

so time is a consequence of an objects movement , in this case Falcons , as I've been saying

Actually it is calculating velocities, not in units we use, but it is, that's how we can catch balls and things, it's amazing how our brains do it.

 

By observation, which is measurment.

and the observation is based on movement , which gives the ability to measure

Not a consequence of movement no.

yes time is

Time is part of the universe, it is not a consequence of anything as space is not a consequence, without movement things such as nuclear decay would still happen with a time dependence...

if nuclear decay happens but has still a dependence on time , control the nuclear decay dynamics through time and time alone

it won't happen , ever

We get into definitions. Events occur in the present or "now" in all refrence planes.

yes

If you watch a falcon over take a pigeon you are watching it, each frame in your brain is a measurement of position, whether you're consciously aware of it or not your brain is calculating velocities and predicting future positions etc...

your brain is not calculating velocities, who knew velocities at that time period and who cared .

it simply was that one bird was faster than another purely by observations

But even if it wasn't doing anything that complicated if it was just taking two frames 10 seconds apart one with the falcon behind and one with it in front it has made two measurements, they are not accurate measurements but they are still measurements of position relative to each other, and they are temporally separate, and have to be else there could be no position difference.

so time is a consequence of an objects movement , in this case Falcons , as I've been saying

Without time everything would be frozen and there could be no motion.

actually if this was true would mean that simply adding time into a system and /or object would cause a thaw , so that everything would have movement again

try just adding time into a system " alone " and you will find nothing still happens , obviously

Originally Posted by north

so you don't trust what you see ?

 

interesting

Seeing is measuring. That was my point, you need to see it (measure it) twice, else you cannot observe any movement...

 

really

 

so a Falcon can't overtake a pigeon just by observing the interaction by the two ?

 

obviously the Falcon can overtake the pigeon by observation alone , with NO measurement of either the pigeons speed or the Falcons .

 

and for hundreds of yrs of Falconry it was obvious and is still true

Urmmm how?

 

Unless I first see (measure) something initially behind something else and then at a later time see (measure) the same object to be infront of it then I've no way of telling whether one object has passed another or not.

so you don't trust what you see ?

interesting

Motion cannot take place without time.

 

of course motion can

 

its more like without motion of objects, by objects , there is no way to measure time

 

because without the objects movement there is no fundamental basis on which time can be derived

Without some form of measurement you have no way of knowing that one object has passed the other. It is impossible to tell without measurement.

of course thats just simply wrong and you that Klaynos

Originally Posted by north

yes it does , this not mathematical problem but a practical situation

 

t=t=0

 

mathematically its true but since I haven't asked for any mathematical analysis it has no relevance

 

 

 

no I have two , obviously

 

to the objects and the objects observers , mathematical measurement is again irrelevant

 

the out come is clear

 

one object overtakes the other

Physical discussions are mathematical, that is the nature of physics.

perhaps , but that does not make mathematics the fundamental cause , effect or affect of why the event happened

fundamentally, any physical discussions are based on what the physical objects do

on which the mathematics is based on

therefore the physical dynamics of things are based on what they and/or don't do amongst themselves , only

and therefore mathematics analysis the end consequence

If you have two position measurements where the position has changed you MUST have a time change, that is how the universe works.

the two positions don't need to be measured to state the obvious

one object is passing the other

that should be clear

Please see swansonts post above about the definition of a second.

 

Originally Posted by north

 

 

well look at this way ;

 

suppose there are two objects , moving in a certain direction and one object passes the other

 

now I don't need to know the velocity of the object that passes the other to know that the object being passed is slower than the other

 

time is not necessary for the clarity of the action

 

Just because you have not stated the time, does not mean you have not used the concept, if you take only t=t_0 there is no motion,

 

yes it does , this not mathematical problem but a practical situation

 

t=t=0

 

mathematically its true but since I haven't asked for any mathematical analysis it has no relevance

 

you have only one position measurement so you can make no comment on velocity.

 

no I have two , obviously

 

to the objects and the objects observers , mathematical measurement is again irrelevant

 

the out come is clear

 

one object overtakes the other

so basicly CO2 stumps us , as far as being able to break it down other than photosynthesis

interesting

the faster you move through space the slower you move through time,

 

not really

 

its just about perspective really

 

what do you base time on in order to come to this conclusion

 

this is like saying the faster you move through space the slower the galactic spiral arms would be

 

and the slower you go in space the faster the galactic spiral arms would be

 

neither would happen

 

because the speed that the galactic spiral arms would go is completely dependent on the galaxy its self

 

regardless of your speed

I don't see how any of your points are describing (I think velocity) without time, which was my challenge.

 

1) Oscillations not movement.

 

how so ?

 

how do you have oscillations without movement ?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I don't see how any of your points are describing (I think velocity) without time, which was my challenge.

 

well look at this way ;

 

suppose there are two objects , moving in a certain direction and one object passes the other

 

now I don't need to know the velocity of the object that passes the other to know that the object being passed is slower than the other

 

time is not necessary for the clarity of the action

Even though spacetime is expanding, can we consider it at rest with the universe?

 

from what perspective

 

 

Maybe time moving forward is the expansion we observe?

 

so are you saying that time and time alone has a physical influence on physical objects and therefore expansion ?

 

how so ?

OK, watching teh same counter, sorry I misread what you were saying. That makes matters significantly harder, and you'd need to clarify the situation further, as it looks like a bit of frame mixing is going on.

 

May I suggest we take a step back from GR and just concentrate on SR.

 

Consider 2 frames,

 

Frame A is at rest and contains a clock (CA) and an atomic oscillator (OA).

 

Frame B is moving with velocity v (v>0.9c) relative to A and contains a clock (CB) and an atomic oscillator (OB).

 

Using CA frame A counts x oscillations on OA, and y oscillations on OB.

 

Using CB frame B counts x oscillations on OB, and y oscillations on OA.

 

Once you start moving between frames you need to be careful as accelerations will also have some relativistic effect...

Klaynos

while I understand your points

there are still 3 basic things about time

1) time is based on the movement of objects

2) the rate of time is based on the frame of which the object is in ( fast , slow ) and the affects thereof

3) that no matter how you slice it , oscillations , or just plain movement , the essence of time is still fundamentally based on the objects movement characteristics caused by interaction with other objects and/or internal characteristics

Re-read the first sentence of the text you quoted.

I know

I just thought that hermanntrude had something else in mind , besides the first sentence , in post #4

And I don't think you even can wave a chemical at it. if something can bind CO2 through simple reaction, it's usually made by kicking CO2 out of the compound (CaO by roasting CaCO3, for example) or has a hazardous and more dangerous sideproduct that needs to go somewhere. (electrolysis of NaCl in a cell with a diaphragm to make NaOH, for example yields chlorine gas side product.)

 

And if we try to use petroleum to make any of the energy needed for those processes, we fall even further behind.

could you not though use elecrolysis to seperate C from O2 ?

just asking

Stop using fossil fuels, plant more vegetation, stop deforestation and include scrubbers on all industries which release large quantities of CO2

 

have you got, oh, about $16,000,000,000,000 to help my idea turn into reality? no, well there's a bloody surprise.

 

This problem isn't going away not because someone hasn't yet thought to wave a chemical at the CO2, but because it's financially more rewarding for the very powerful to destroy the planet than the protect it.

just curious

what is your idea ?

what do you mean neutralise? Usually that's used to mean "bring the concentration of hydronium ions to approximately 1 x 10^-7 Mol/L, but i suspect that's not what you mean.

 

And if there WAS a magic chemical which made carbon dioxide magically stop being carbon dioxide it'd magically destroy the atmosphere, killing us all by first killing all the plants.

 

Chemistry is a science, not a magic wand.

so what makes CO2 so tough to solve ?

how would you approach the problem chemically

is there not a chemical that can neutralize CO2 ?

surely there must be

Merged post follows:

in the future we are planing to put CO2 under ground , what of a rupture ?

is the CO2 so tightly bonded that photosynthesis is the only way to break this bonding ?

what of electrolsis ?

I don't get what the ultimate problem is ?

is it money ?

Isent time just measurement invented to see how long it took you to win the 100m sprint like a cm or a metre we wouldn't be arguing if a cm had physical essence or not so what makes time any different isent it just a measurement?

yes

relativity is really about perspective only

from ones perspective , an object seems to go at a certain speed

but from the perspective of the object its self , it goes with a certain speed

time-dilation is again about the perspective of the observer , but to the object its self , it does not dilate

I have been asking about spacetime in another thread so I am also looking for answers. At this point I understand that space and time was connected by man because the math worked out and it was easier then dealing with an extra dimension of time. Most do not think time is the fabric of space but that space is just a metric. However, it seems the jury is still out as far as some type of ether.

 

In some ways it seems that the speed of light and time are similar because they are both constant, but only relative to the frame they are in. You have "t", proper time, that you experience in your frame. Then you have "T", the time in a different frame then yours. Some will say you have universal time, a clock at rest with the universe CMB and (I think) in the absence of gravity.

space is room , elbow room so to speak

time is the mathematical following of the change in position of an object too another and by doing so can lead to knowledge gained by inference as to why