Jump to content

Time, movement (nothing is absolute)?


Alan McDougall
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello people,

 

Just to bounce myself into the forum, what do you guys think about no micro system being absolute ?

 

 

:-)There is no system or place in a system which is absolute, so that by reference to it we may determine absolutely the velocity of a movement. Yet to measure the movement of any system we must adopt a standpoint. This is Einstein's principle of relativity. Every observer of nature measuring phenomena takes a frame of reference and whatever frame he chooses it must be for him a system at rest. Thus just as we saw in Bergson's theory when we considered the subjective factor, or mind, or intellect, so in Einstein's theory when we consider the objective factor, the world, or universe, we have nothing absolute to refer to

 

 

I SUGGEST EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE NOTHING IS ABSOLUTE

 

 

Nothing is as it seems to be and all things are subjective realties to the observer. There is no absolute time, time moves differently from one object to the next and in one location to the next. For example, time moves slower on massive objects like the Sun or Jupiter and faster on smaller objects like our Earth. It moves even minutely faster in space. This is no longer a theory, but proven fact. Extremely accurate precision atomic clocks on fast moving spacecraft have detected this strange phenomenon and proven Einstein’s theory of relativity to be true. Stop all the clocks in the universe and movement will continue unaffected. Stop all movement and the illusion we call time will stop and nothing ever happen again, unless Source again allows movement to begin again? (OK maybe I am wrong on this take it too peaces if you like!!)

 

Time is elastic with in one moment in only one direction, namely into future moment. The twin paradox describes what happens. One twin boards a spacecraft traveling close to the speed of light, on a voyage for Alpha Centauri, some four light years from earth. Ten years he returns having aged only one year compared to his now twenty-year-older twin brother. An enigmatic paradox but absolutely true and real.

 

One exciting, but far distant use of this effect is the real possibility of reaching any moment in the future. Given enough speed, one could reach the Olympic Games of the year 2108, in a matter of a few subjective days.

 

Backward times travel to the past, is a fantasy and if this were possible, a person could do the impossible and go back and murder their younger self.

 

There is no universal now! Events are simply there, hanging in space-time Time cannot exist without space and space cannot exist without time. We only conceive of time by the movement of an object through space, so space and time are different realities of the same thing and can only exist where movement is allowed.

 

For example, stop all movement in the universe and you have stopped time, have you not? Therefore, these three things should be consolidated in to one "spacetimemovement" reality. There is simply no universal now and each moment is unique to the observer. Perhaps if we could view the whole of reality like unraveled frames of a enternal movie story, depicting the life of the universe, from its birth until its demise like, separate billions of moments, recorded on each frame of the film of existence.

 

Time is a measurement we have created to track how we move through space. (I think)

 

It should be obvious that something that is eternal cannot exist in three-dimensional reality. It must exist outside of what we call time and space in an “ever-changing moment”

 

Regards

 

By Alan McDougall 29/8/2007

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the masses of particles or the lifetimes of radioactive isotopes or the center of mass energies of colliding particles or the elementary charge or the amount of people believing that "everything is relative" or the number of beer cans in a six-pack or ... .

Velocities being dependent on who observes the motion is not a big deal. It is true in non-relativistic physics, too. In fact, it if you take the standpoint of differential geometry velocties actually are absolute and independent of an observer in relativity (at least the time-likes). Thinking "the physics model is called 'relativity' therefore everything must be relative" seem like a certain path never to understand the theory. The constants (under changes of the coordinate system=observer) in the theory are very, very important for understanding it so in that respect the name "relativity" is really an extremely bad choice of a name (can't think of a respect in which it was a good name, either).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
Hello people,

 

Just to bounce myself into the forum, what do you guys think about no micro system being absolute ?

 

 

:-)There is no system or place in a system which is absolute, so that by reference to it we may determine absolutely the velocity of a movement. Yet to measure the movement of any system we must adopt a standpoint. This is Einstein's principle of relativity. Every observer of nature measuring phenomena takes a frame of reference and whatever frame he chooses it must be for him a system at rest. Thus just as we saw in Bergson's theory when we considered the subjective factor, or mind, or intellect, so in Einstein's theory when we consider the objective factor, the world, or universe, we have nothing absolute to refer to

 

 

I SUGGEST EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE NOTHING IS ABSOLUTE

 

 

Nothing is as it seems to be and all things are subjective realties to the observer. There is no absolute time, time moves differently from one object to the next and in one location to the next. For example, time moves slower on massive objects like the Sun or Jupiter and faster on smaller objects like our Earth. It moves even minutely faster in space. This is no longer a theory, but proven fact. Extremely accurate precision atomic clocks on fast moving spacecraft have detected this strange phenomenon and proven Einstein’s theory of relativity to be true. Stop all the clocks in the universe and movement will continue unaffected. Stop all movement and the illusion we call time will stop and nothing ever happen again, unless Source again allows movement to begin again? (OK maybe I am wrong on this take it too peaces if you like!!)

 

Time is elastic with in one moment in only one direction, namely into future moment. The twin paradox describes what happens. One twin boards a spacecraft traveling close to the speed of light, on a voyage for Alpha Centauri, some four light years from earth. Ten years he returns having aged only one year compared to his now twenty-year-older twin brother. An enigmatic paradox but absolutely true and real.

 

One exciting, but far distant use of this effect is the real possibility of reaching any moment in the future. Given enough speed, one could reach the Olympic Games of the year 2108, in a matter of a few subjective days.

 

Backward times travel to the past, is a fantasy and if this were possible, a person could do the impossible and go back and murder their younger self.

 

There is no universal now! Events are simply there, hanging in space-time Time cannot exist without space and space cannot exist without time. We only conceive of time by the movement of an object through space, so space and time are different realities of the same thing and can only exist where movement is allowed.

 

For example, stop all movement in the universe and you have stopped time, have you not? Therefore, these three things should be consolidated in to one "spacetimemovement" reality. There is simply no universal now and each moment is unique to the observer. Perhaps if we could view the whole of reality like unraveled frames of a enternal movie story, depicting the life of the universe, from its birth until its demise like, separate billions of moments, recorded on each frame of the film of existence.

 

Time is a measurement we have created to track how we move through space. (I think)

 

It should be obvious that something that is eternal cannot exist in three-dimensional reality. It must exist outside of what we call time and space in an “ever-changing moment”

 

Regards

 

By Alan McDougall 29/8/2007

 

 

There is quite a few things wrong in this post, but lets tackle one for now. The one i speak of is that time is not something which flows in one direction: In fact, it is omnidirectional, it engulfs all points in space at all time.

 

The imaginary dimension of space (time), seems to have a forward flow according to the psychological arrow of time. This however is purely psychological and without the perception of time, there is no past and no future. This was one major effect of relativity that Einstein created.

 

''Only fools believe that there is a past and a future,'' Einstein once said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is quite a few things wrong in this post, but lets tackle one for now. The one i speak of is that time is not something which flows in one direction: In fact, it is omnidirectional, it engulfs all points in space at all time.

 

What about the thermodynamic arrow of time? Entropy does not spontaneously decrease in a closed system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the thermodynamic arrow of time? Entropy does not spontaneously decrease in a closed system.

 

Good question, this deserves 70 points :)

 

The thermodynamic arrow refers to the very low entropy that would have needed to have existed at t=0 (or during the very first chronon of existence.)

 

The thermodynamic arrow is referred as an explanation to why certin objects in the universe appear to work in a certain directionality, which is forward.

 

The psychological arrow is linked to this, because we percieve a similar directionality when concerning the physical changes we seem to make sense of in a subliminal manner, however, without the psychological arrow, we must be left with a entropic arrow that has no directionality under relativity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A chronon, is another term to a plank time. It is basically, the Plank Time itself, this is just a very convenient word to sci-obsessives.

 

I will try and find a link for you.

 

Planck time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light in a ... Spacetime · Chronon · Cosmological decade · Planck epoch · Planck time · T-symmetry ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time - 71k - Cached

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a theory that proposes that time is not continuous."

 

taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronon

 

 

Right, let me help you here.

 

The quantum bible of the standard interpretation, is the most accepted quantum interpretation that is on offer to the public. So conceptually, it relieves theories that must be of maintream. So... here is the rub, the standard interpretation is only theory, but it is still the most accepted. John A. Wheeler first posited that matter and energy must arise under Planck constraints.

 

Not to sound like others here, however, but if you propose that matter and energy arises under other contraints, it remains speculation, and at best, psuedoscience. The reason why, is that all theories under the standard interpretation would fail like dominos, if it was found wrong.

 

This is why, the words chosen in wiki, (which isn't the best place to source information, simply because i have found three mistakes in the past two years), it leaves someone to accept that wiki is not the best place to source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... here is the rub, the standard interpretation is only theory...

 

conclusive proof you are not a scientist.

 

This is why, the words chosen in wiki, (which isn't the best place to source information, simply because i have found three mistakes in the past two years), it leaves someone to accept that wiki is not the best place to source.

 

yet you used it as a reference also, and it was in reference to the same article. can't have it both ways tom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is that a conclusive proof? Am i wrong in saying the standard interpretation is the accepted intepretation...

 

... I advise you lot to learn quantum mechanics, before you all come here to [math]try[/math] and slag off people who actually knows these things. Plus, some of us don't need references. So continue to be condescending, and i will cease altogether in giving people my advice and knowledge in this site.

 

And, i use it as a reference, which i know to be true, smart-ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, if i was not wrong in what i said, do not challenge it. That's like me calling a carrot a carrot, and you calling it an elephant. Leave the truth to the truth, and the lies for a cesspit.

 

And please, do not challenge the standrd interpretation. If you do, its not me in the wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, if i was not wrong in what i said, do not challenge it. That's like me calling a carrot a carrot, and you calling it an elephant. Leave the truth to the truth, and the lies for a cesspit.

 

And please, do not challenge the standrd interpretation. If you do, its not me in the wrong.

 

So far, my young sir, you were the one who insisted on calling the carrot a bumblebee, all the while sitting on a high branch with your nose stuck in the sky.

 

Science has no room for petty ego challenges. The questions that were raised were challenging your claims, not you personally, so please address them properly instead of throwin petty ad-hominems everywhere.

 

The people in this forum come from varied backgrounds. Some have PhDs in physics, chemistry and other subjects, some are on their way to one, some are not officially trained. If you actually did your research on the forum and went on to read some of the threads, you would see that we examine theories by the merits of their CLAIMS, and not by the person saying them. That is why some of our finest contributors have absolutely no official training whatsoever; as long as they substantiate their claims and follow the scientific method in inquiry and debates, all is good.

 

 

Finally, I want to remind you that YOU came to US for your theories, not the other way around. We are here to listen and help but we will not insist or plead that you accept our help. If you wish to have an audience that bows to your feet at every claim, you should go elsewhere.

 

If you are willing to get off your high horse and start substantiating, follow the rules and stop degrading others, then please, stay. The burden of proof on any new claim is on you. Please remember that.

 

Humility never hurt anyone, specifically when the accuracy of their claims is highly questioned.

 

~moo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.