Seeing Time

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Seeing Time

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:39 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Space and time are connected to each other as space is required in order for time to pass
Time cannot pass within a space of zero volume since such a space cannot exist in reality
Other than connected you are making a true statement but time is not connected to space and space is not connected to time. As an
example time passes over space but does not connect to space in any way. Space time seems to show that time is connected to space
but that is one reason that space time is invalid

you have a space of zero volume between two spaces of positive volume that may be possible but time will not effect any of the three
spaces because time effects objects not spaces
Time passes through space not over it. It affects objects that exist in space. Everything in space is affected by time. Hence spacetime
So space and time are most definitely connected to each other. Spacetime is the fabric of the Universe and the Universe is all there is

surreptitious57
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Seeing Time

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:45 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
But you ( and I ) are in disagreement with the physicists who say that gravity warps space time and that causes light to bend
Light travels through spacetime [ not just space ] and so if it gets bent by gravity then gravity must be in spacetime too
Although space and time can be treated as separate dimensions they are as I have already said connected to each other

surreptitious57
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Seeing Time

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:01 am


John Archibald Wheeler : spacetime tells matter how to move / matter tells spacetime how to curve

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:14 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:01 am

John Archibald Wheeler : spacetime tells matter how to move / matter tells spacetime how to curve
That's like saying that a car tells the road how to curve. The road is not dependent on the car. The car is dependent on the road.

Don't say that the cause comes from the effect.
Last edited by jayjacobus on Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:26 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:45 pm
jayjacobus wrote:
But you ( and I ) are in disagreement with the physicists who say that gravity warps space time and that causes light to bend
Light travels through spacetime [ not just space ] and so if it gets bent by gravity then gravity must be in spacetime too
Although space and time can be treated as separate dimensions they are as I have already said connected to each other
It is unknown if gravity has a speed. In fact it seems that it doesn't. If it doesn't have a speed, gravity is in the instant.

Saying time is a dimension is saying that space-time is real, and if space-time is real, then time is a dimension. This is circular. The premise depends on the conclusion and the conclusion depends on the premise.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Seeing Time

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:47 am

jayjacobus wrote:
It is unknown if gravity has a speed
Gravity propagates at the speed of light because it has zero mass
The gravitational waves discovered last year were travelling at c

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:33 am

People with beliefs have logic that supports their beliefs. To understand, it is sometimes necessary to suspend beliefs and go back to proven facts. You are letting your belief in space-time drive your facts. You said once that you are open minded but that is not my experience with you.

PS. Gravity is measured at a point. The instruments measuring gravity are measuring the effects of gravity on the instruments but not gravity itself. Gravity itself has no material characteristics so gravity can't be measured directly. The people who say that gravity moves at the speed of light must have deduced that conclusion. I would have to know how they did that.

Do you agree?

surreptitious57
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Seeing Time

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:19 am

They would have reached the conclusion based upon the fact that gravity has no mass as I said. And neither is it measured
at a point but at the distance between objects or else it would have no effect upon them. And Newtons formula would be
wrong. Technically it is but that is only because General Relativity superseded it though it still continues to be used today

surreptitious57
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Seeing Time

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:44 am

Comparing spacetime to a road is an inaccurate analogy because a road is static and straight and smooth
But spacetime is malleable for it can be bent out of shape by the proximity of very large objects of mass

User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 2337
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Seeing Time

Post by attofishpi » Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:05 pm

What is TIME?

What then is a moment in time? In the true sense of the word, in a single moment in time there is nothing moving.
For isn't time simply the occurrence of an event? If there is not an event, then there is not time. Not an electron spinning, a photon emitting...etc

TIME...reversed...EMIT

www.androcies.com

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:09 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:19 am
They would have reached the conclusion based upon the fact that gravity has no mass as I said. And neither is it measured
at a point but at the distance between objects or else it would have no effect upon them. And Newtons formula would be
wrong. Technically it is but that is only because General Relativity superseded it though it still continues to be used today
I don't think I am in conflict with Newton. If I am in conflict with relativity it does not destroy relativity but suggests a small(?) reinterpretation of one concept in relativity. In other words I am not attacking relativity. You just think I am.

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:15 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:44 am
Comparing spacetime to a road is an inaccurate analogy because a road is static and straight and smooth
But spacetime is malleable for it can be bent out of shape by the proximity of very large objects of mass
You have misconstrued my analogy by seeing the non-analogous characteristics of a road and space-time. Of course they are not the same but there can still be an analogy in some sense of the word analogy.

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:38 pm

I think that Newton thought about relational time and absolute time. Relativity doesn't override Newton's thinking but expands on Newton's thinking. Newton's thinking could still be correct just not complete.

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:57 pm

attofishpi wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:05 pm
What is TIME?

What then is a moment in time? In the true sense of the word, in a single moment in time there is nothing moving.
For isn't time simply the occurrence of an event? If there is not an event, then there is not time. Not an electron spinning, a photon emitting...etc

TIME...reversed...EMIT

www.androcies.com
If there are frames in a movie and each frame is not moving, does that mean the movie does not exist? If there isn't time, there isn't movement and if there is no movement there is no time. But I suggest that there are two (or more) meanings of the word time and thinking there is only one leads to circular reasoning.

In the sentence, " If there isn't time, there isn't movement and if there is no movement there is no time." there is no sense unless the first time is time1 and the second time is time2 or vice versus. Time1 and time2 are not the same time at different points but instead two different connotations of the word time.

jayjacobus
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus » Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:37 pm

jayjacobus wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:57 pm

In the sentence, " If there isn't time, there isn't movement and if there is no movement there is no time." there is no sense unless the first time is time1 and the second time is time2 or vice versus. Time1 and time2 are not the same time at different points but instead two different connotations of the word time.
If there isn't absolute time, there isn't movement and if there is no movement there is no relational time. That statement makes logical sense even if it doesn't make "relative sense". But it's not supposed to make relative sense.

How in the world does that statement reflect on relative time in any way? I didn't mention relative time. My challengers did. I only responded.
Last edited by jayjacobus on Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests