Two faces of time?

[Sisyphus]

That wouldn't mean that everything is moving. In fact, that would make the word "moving" meaningless.

[michel123456]

The word "moving" is meaningless.

It is relative and different for each FOR.

[Sisyphus]

No, I mean literally meaningless. Not "velocity is relative and dependent on reference frame," but "velocity is a nonsense word."

[Mr Skeptic]

That makes them related. It doesn't make them the same thing. You can't reduce distance to duration or vice versa with dimensional analysis. So no, you can't convert between meters and seconds. You can convert between meters and light-seconds.

 

Space and time are related by a conversion constant. In different reference frames, what one person calls distance another calls time.

[npts2020]

In my (probably wrong) opinion, time is a completely artificial construct, like mathematics. It is merely a description of a phenomenon i.e. change, and not really a property of anything like mass or charge. Distance (size) is a physical property of something and this is why it can't be equated with time. Just my two cents.

[michel123456]

Space and time are related by a conversion constant. In different reference frames, what one person calls distance another calls time.

 

I cannot agree more.

 

If you accept distance as "a physical property of something", you have to accept the same definition for time. Space & time are made of the same "stuff", if any.

 

............

 

And really, npts's definition of "a physical property of something" is a very meaningful definition for time. IMHO.

Edited February 20, 2010 by michel123456

[Sisyphus]

Space and time are related by a conversion constant. In different reference frames, what one person calls distance another calls time.

 

Yes, a conversion dependent on the relative velocity between reference frames, "velocity" being defined as displacement/time, which would be meaningless if they were the same thing. My point here is that time is not a synonym for distance. You can't just take the t out of equations and replace it with a d, or vice versa.

[Mr Skeptic]

Speed can indeed be treated as a unitless number between 0 and 1, where 1 is the speed of light. This is done very frequently in relativistic math. You can have units of grams per kilogram, but you can also write that in unitless form. Sometimes biologists use the other form, however.

[Akhenaten2]

Michel - "duration = distance and infers motion" this is actually very profound and you deserve more recognition. Relativity theory does in fact require everything to be in motion otherwise it wouldn't exist.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Moontanman- "Time would be a fundamental dimension" - in my opinion this is just about the most profound piece of original thinking I have come across on this forum and much nearer to reality than you are being credited with.

[Moontanman]

Michel - "duration = distance and infers motion" this is actually very profound and you deserve more recognition. Relativity theory does in fact require everything to be in motion otherwise it wouldn't exist.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Moontanman- "Time would be a fundamental dimension" - in my opinion this is just about the most profound piece of original thinking I have come across on this forum and much nearer to reality than you are being credited with.

 

Thank you, I guess even a blind pig finds an occasional acorn.

[Sisyphus]

Speed can indeed be treated as a unitless number between 0 and 1, where 1 is the speed of light. This is done very frequently in relativistic math. You can have units of grams per kilogram, but you can also write that in unitless form. Sometimes biologists use the other form, however.

 

Grams and kilograms are arbitrary measures of the same thing, but C is a fundamental constant. I would love to hear an explanation of what C is that doesn't invoke any notion of time, or doesn't invoke any notion of space. (If they're the same thing, both explanations should be possible, and in fact be identical except for switching out one word for the other.)

[Mr Skeptic]

c = 299,792,458 meters per second is the constant of proportionality for converting between meters and seconds. 1000 grams per kilogram is the constant of proportionality between grams and kilograms. What's so different? You can't have a constant of proportionality without mentioning the units it converts between.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Mr Skeptic

[michel123456]

Michel - "duration = distance and infers motion" this is actually very profound and you deserve more recognition. Relativity theory does in fact require everything to be in motion otherwise it wouldn't exist.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Moontanman- "Time would be a fundamental dimension" - in my opinion this is just about the most profound piece of original thinking I have come across on this forum and much nearer to reality than you are being credited with.

 

You're welcome.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You can't just take the t out of equations and replace it with a d, or vice versa.

 

That is very profound too.

 

My observations are based on actual equations. The only thing that changes is the interpretation.

Meters & seconds are measurements. When we measure meters, it looks so evident, we KNOW what we are measuring. It is there in front of our eyes. When we are measuring time (seconds), we KNOW what we are measuring, or at least we should know.

Our equations use these measurements to establish some mathematical equations that can be related with other observations of reality. And everything fits well. The point is not to change anything of that.

The point is to understand in another way what we thought we knew about the measurement.

[michel123456]

That is only the beginning.

For those who are following my thoughts, there is something splendid happening.

Time, that was hidden, is there in front of you. When you see distance, you see time. Isn't it wonderful?

 

But now that you think you can see Time, as I do, do you understand anything more?

No.

Not yet.

You have just discovered his tail. The monster is still hidden.

 

I will not expose any other idea here, this thread is a beauty.

[swansont]

Relativity theory does in fact require everything to be in motion otherwise it wouldn't exist.

 

Wait, what? Relativity says no such thing.

 

Relativity tells us that motion is relative. Its perfectly acceptable to say something is at rest, and there is no physics you can do that will tell you that something is in a state of motion. There is no claim about things not existing if they are at rest. Where did that come from?

[StrontiDog]

Wait, what? Relativity says no such thing.

 

Relativity tells us that motion is relative. Its perfectly acceptable to say something is at rest, and there is no physics you can do that will tell you that something is in a state of motion. There is no claim about things not existing if they are at rest. Where did that come from?

 

Hear Hear, and thank you, swansont.

 

 

We think the earth is moving around the sun at somewhere around 29.78 km/s. For simplicity's sake, let's take a kg of lead from the North Pole and shoot it out into space (so we don't have to worry about the speed of the rotation of the earth).

 

The Sun is rotating around the Big Black Hole at the center of the Milky Way at somewhre around 220 km/s.

 

And the Milky Way might be moving, roughly in the direction of the sky that is defined by the constellations of Leo and Virgo, at around 35,000 km/s.

 

If some velocities are off or some reduce others, fine. It doesn't matter, we all know that the entire planet is moving through space with some velocity, I found these numbers here.

 

It should be possible to hook up rockets or ion drives or impulse engines to this one kg mass and push it in some direction or another until we have counteracted all of this velocity. All of it.

 

It should now be 'motionless' in reference to everything else in the universe. If you can think of some other inherent motion, fine. We'll just push the thing a little harder.

 

Are some of you folks saying that this 'motionless' mass will cease to exist?

 

It sure seems like you are.

 

None of these velocities are unattainable, just difficult. And we have all the time we need to accomplish it.

 

If this is what you're saying. . .please tell me where you found this research. I've seen nothing of it.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Wolfe

[Sisyphus]

It should now be 'motionless' in reference to everything else in the universe. If you can think of some other inherent motion, fine. We'll just push the thing a little harder.

 

There is no such thing as "inherent motion," just relative motion. So yes, it's quite possible to be motionless, and much easier than what you propose. You just have to choose a reference frame in which you have zero velocity.

[StrontiDog]

I don't know if there is a language problem here, or not. But when Akhenaten2 said:

 

. . .Relativity theory does in fact require everything to be in motion otherwise it wouldn't exist.

 

Some folks seemed to agree, and I don't get that, at all.

 

By inherent motion, I just meant that theoretical 1 kg lead ball that we shot from the north pole is already moving through space along with the rest of the planet and solar system and galaxy, etc. with a significant velocity. Is this the 'motion' that everyone is talking about?

 

Because by expending a fair amount of energy, we could kill all of that velocity and bring that lead ball to rest, completely. I mean zero kinetic energy at all. And I'm pretty sure it would still exist, with mass unchanged.

 

I doubt there is any actual matter anywhere in the universe that is truly at rest, but it should be possible.

 

And as for the whole real point of this thread, that time = distance, I can't see this, either.

 

All dimensions are independent. The height of an object is not affected by its depth or it's width.

 

zero D = a single point in space

 

1 D = a line

 

2 D = a plane

 

3 D = a volume

 

Each less-than-3D object exists just fine without the 'extra' dimensions. The definition of distance is simply how much space exists between two points. There is no conversion between height and depth, just a measurement, like keeping score.

 

Time exists, it's real enough. We can measure it but it's not the same as distance, at all. For one thing, that ticking watch that everybody wants to fling around at 80% of the speed of light that comes back having ticked fewer times than its synchronized twin, you know the one. It's a very popular model.

 

Well, while it was relativistic, it was smaller, as well. Its 3 dimensions were altered the same as the flow of time. When you slow it down, it gets its old size back, but it never gets those 'lost' seconds back, now does it? Why? Cause they aren't lost. That watch has literally existed in the universe for less time than its twin.

 

 

Time is not something that can be converted to distance. It's a different critter, altogether.

 

I haven't seen any argument on this thread that has changed any of this, for me.

[Sisyphus]

I wasn't agreeing with Akhenaten. I was just saying that motion is always relative. That 1kg ball is not already moving through space. There's no such thing as inherently moving, just moving relative to something else. In one frame of reference, it already has a velocity of zero. Relative to the center of he galaxy, it's moving quite fast. And relative to it, the center of the galaxy is moving quite fast. And relative to some other frame of reference, it's moving at 99% of the speed of light. All of these frames of reference are equally valid.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well you can define a "special" reference frame, but it will only be as special as you define it to be. An Earth-based reference frame seems quite special if you are on Earth. If you define a reference frame based on the CBR, anywhere you are you could compare to that frame easily. You'd still have to look out the window to do so, however, just like any other reference frame.

[michel123456]

I suppose Akhenaten's point of vue is not about macroscopic motion. It is about motion we encounter looking at the very essence of matter, electrons, photons, spins, a.s.o.

I have to say i was pleased with his remark, because as I understand how things are going on, motion is everywhere. Nothing is static. And this search for "no motion" looks very much to me as a human misconception of reality.

 

As for the time=distance:

 

Strontidog wrote

The definition of distance is simply how much space exists between two points.

 

That could be the strictly geometric definition of space. The strict mathematic one. By this definition, there is no relation between distance & time. They are completely different concepts.

By this definition, I can draw a line, and put 2 points A & B on this line. Distance will be the amount of space between those 2 points.

 

Question: what is the difference between A & B?

Can A & B be the one and same thing? the one and same point? Intuition (and experience) will answer No, they are not the one and same "thing", because they are not placed at the same position in space.

And then I will ask, isnt'it possible that A could be at 2 positions of space?

And intuition (& experience) will answer, sure A can be at 2 positions of space, but not at the same time.

 

So, the real answer to the first question, why A & B are not the same thing, is that A & B are different because there is space between them and Time.

 

That is the answer that experience of real world (& physics) has showned.

Distance between objects means time between objects. It is different from the first strict geometrical mathematical definition.

[StrontiDog]

So, the real answer to the first question, why A & B are not the same thing, is that A & B are different because there is space between them and Time.

 

That is the answer that experience of real world (& physics) has showned.

Distance between objects means time between objects. It is different from the first strict geometrical mathematical definition.

 

michel123456,

 

Why? What paper, what research? Where do you get the statement that Time is even in this equation, at all.

 

The distance between two points that are not defined as the same place:

 

X = n

y = n

Z = n

 

this is the first point.

 

Here's your second.

 

X = n + 1

Y = n + 1

Z = n + 1

 

They are now one unit apart. Call it a meter, call it a light year, it doesn't matter.

 

There is only so much space between these two points, it does not matter what your reference point is. It could be your big toe. . .no difference.

 

And this amount of space between two points is what we measure using km or cm or inches or miles or leauges (which is difined, I think, as the distance a person or a horse can walk, in an hour.)

 

All of these things work, as long as we all agree how much space exists between these two points. In other words, as long as we agree what the definition of the unit of measure is. If there is some problem here, let's get it out, now. If not, we're fine.

 

If it takes me a second or a week to travel between these two points, the two points are still the same 'distance' apart. Time has nothing to do with it.

 

If you have evidence otherwise, please show it to me. The 'time' between two points is not even a consideration when it comes to how far apart they are.

 

I'm really interested in what you have to say about this subject.

 

Bill Wolfe.

[swansont]

I suppose Akhenaten's point of vue is not about macroscopic motion. It is about motion we encounter looking at the very essence of matter, electrons, photons, spins, a.s.o.

I have to say i was pleased with his remark, because as I understand how things are going on, motion is everywhere. Nothing is static. And this search for "no motion" looks very much to me as a human misconception of reality.

 

This motion that we observe is not required by relativity, which is what the claim was. Linear motion is relative; if two objects are moving relative to each other, either one can be treated as if it were at rest. There is no absolute reference frame.

[StrontiDog]

That could be the strictly geometric definition of space. The strict mathematic one. Question: what is the difference between A & B?

 

Can A & B be the one and same thing? the one and same point? Intuition (and experience) will answer No, they are not the one and same "thing", because they are not placed at the same position in space.

And then I will ask, isnt'it possible that A could be at 2 positions of space?

And intuition (& experience) will answer, sure A can be at 2 positions of space, but not at the same time.

 

 

michel123456,

 

Here's the hypothesis; If two points in space are at the same spatial spot (on an XYZ axis) but in different times, Then there should be some way of mathematically describing these two different points.

 

 

Please show me these two equations. I promise you I can either follow them or study enough simple, 3D Cartesian geometry to do so.

 

And by the way, just putting in a (t + 1) or a (t +n) doesn't really do anything, it's actually nonsense. (Just in case you were tempted to take the easy route.)

 

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Bill Wolfe

[michel123456]

Hi Bill.

call me Michel.

 

Your last post is difficult to answer because my answer is not the common one. So I will answer at the end.

 

I understand your difficulty to swallow my proposition.

All the question is about the unit.

What you call a meter, I call a millisecond.

 

Because you cannot have distance without time.

 

What does that mean: "distance without time"

That means for example the one and single object moving from one place to another in time=zero.

It is something we do in geometry, as in your example. Coordinates

X = n

y = n

Z = n

 

X = n + 1

Y = n + 1

Z = n + 1

But in real physical world, we cannot do that. In order to change the coordinates from point A to b, you need time. In order to put point B at his coordinates in the first place, you need time. In order to observe the difference between the coordinates, you need time. Time is somehow "inside the distance".

I just made a step further, putting that time=distance.

 

Now, for your last question:

If two points in space are at the same spatial spot (on an XYZ axis) but in different times

my answer is that it is impossible to remain at the same spatial spot. The concept "same spatial spot" is wrong. IMHO.

As Time elapses, something else is going on. IMHO again.