## How does time work?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

attofishpi
Posts: 4258
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

### Re: How does time work?

I hope you realise that since i live in Australia, England should be called "down-under" - im sure you boffins understand my reasoning in a clockwise fashion.
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

### Re: How does time work?

Noax wrote:
Greta wrote:Yes, the Milky Way is said to be travelling at over 2 million km/h, most of the roughly 3 mill https://astrosociety.org/edu/publicatio ... wfast.html.
I could not find the 3 million kms reference in there at all. The article is American and expresses everything in miles per hour, a few translations to km/h, and nothing per second. I may be American, but I've never done physics or chemistry in those units.
The 2.1m km/h figure is galaxy vs. CBR frame and is about 580 kms. Since we are on the side of the galaxy spinning away from the direction of travel of the thing, we subtract off most of the 220 kms from the rotation putting the velocity of our solar system around 390 relative to CBR frame.
I just added the speed of the Earth's rotation and orbit, the Sun's orbit around the galaxy, and the galaxy's movement (which makes up most of the speed of our travel). Good point about some things cancelling others out. I stand corrected and, like Brian Griffin above, I'm glad to have learn something. Cheers :) Whatever, we can at least say that we are moving around at ridiculous speeds within the total edifice, with the expansion of its most diffuse areas seemingly the driver behind all activity.
Noax wrote:Well the galaxy is moving at ~580 kms relative to CBR frame, presumably in the general direction of the GA. So if it's moving around 1000 kms towards the GA, the GA must be moving towards us (relative to CBR frame) by nearly as much as we're moving towards it for it all to add up to nearly 1000 kms. I don't admit to knowing a lot about the Great Attractor.
Ok, it depends on frame of reference. I'm working around the local gravitational effects within Laniakea as opposed to the total. The latter makes sense theoretically but the former would seem of more direct consequence to our Virgo cluster.

No one knows much about the GA. Just poking around the web now I find that the most recent information, which I'd missed, is that Virgo is not necessarily being pulled toward the Great Attractor but towards the Vela supercluster which is behind the Great Attractor. The scientists in this area are making their first tentative steps into a new frontier and related "facts" reported will be highly mutable.
Noax wrote:
While our local cluster and The Great Attractor are moving closer together (one way or another), Laniakea too must be moving relative to other superclusters. Still, if the universe is a megacluster of swirling superclusters moving relative to each other, with no discernable relativity outside its expanding bounds, then the space and distances would seem less suggestive of the universe's story than the transformations of its material over time (than the constant movement facilitates).
I think superclusters are far apart enough that the expansion of the universe keeps them from swirling each other. For the most part, superclusters move apart from each other. At some scale, everything has to.
For the most part they move away from each other but, as with galaxies, local effects mean that there will be collisions.

When they do separate, they will presumably break apart into smaller clusters that move apart from each other. The prediction is that galalctic clusters will break up but the galaxies will remain intact for some time. They will be so distant from each other, in an otherwise black sky, that any new civilisations in an older universe may well presume their galaxy to be the entire universe.

Interesting to know what kind of theories that emerging intelligent life in 50 billion years' time might develop about their "universe's" origins ... Whaaat? There were once other "universes" that previously interacted with ours? Ridiculous! That's not science - where's the evidence? :)

Atto, I'm also Australian. Here is a proper south-up map :) http://www.odt.org/Pictures/world100dpirgb.jpg
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

### Re: How does time work?

Greta wrote:I just added the speed of the Earth's rotation and orbit, the Sun's orbit around the galaxy, and the galaxy's movement (which makes up most of the speed of our travel). Good point about some things cancelling others out. I stand corrected and, like Brian Griffin above, I'm glad to have learn something. Cheers Whatever, we can at least say that we are moving around at ridiculous speeds within the total edifice, with the expansion of its most diffuse areas seemingly the driver behind all activity.
When they do separate, they will presumably break apart into smaller clusters that move apart from each other. The prediction is that galalctic clusters will break up but the galaxies will remain intact for some time. They will be so distant from each other, in an otherwise black sky, that any new civilisations in an older universe may well presume their galaxy to be the entire universe.
Interesting theory, and hard to swallow. We can see very distant galaxies, so new they don't even have stars yet. We can see the CBR which is older still. It seems that eventually the local sky will darken as the stars burn out, but the distant places will be more visible since the stars there appear younger. Of course if one's star is gone, where does one get the energy to waste doing recreational astronomy? Not like we can see these distant places without instruments. I live in a place just dark enough that I can make out Andromeda without instruments.
Interesting to know what kind of theories that emerging intelligent life in 50 billion years' time might develop about their "universe's" origins ... Whaaat? There were once other "universes" that previously interacted with ours? Ridiculous! That's not science - where's the evidence?

Atto, I'm also Australian. Here is a proper south-up map http://www.odt.org/Pictures/world100dpirgb.jpg
OK, so why does it seem to be human nature to want a map with the nearest pole at the top? I suppose it comes from looking at a globe, which is easier if oriented with the place you're looking at in the upper hemisphere. Does anybody put west or east at the top?
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

### Re: How does time work?

Greta wrote:When they do separate, they will presumably break apart into smaller clusters that move apart from each other. The prediction is that galalctic clusters will break up but the galaxies will remain intact for some time. They will be so distant from each other, in an otherwise black sky, that any new civilisations in an older universe may well presume their galaxy to be the entire universe.
Interesting theory, and hard to swallow. We can see very distant galaxies, so new they don't even have stars yet. We can see the CBR which is older still. It seems that eventually the local sky will darken as the stars burn out, but the distant places will be more visible since the stars there appear younger. Of course if one's star is gone, where does one get the energy to waste doing recreational astronomy? Not like we can see these distant places without instruments. I live in a place just dark enough that I can make out Andromeda without instruments.
Interesting to know what kind of theories that emerging intelligent life in 50 billion years' time might develop about their "universe's" origins ... Whaaat? There were once other "universes" that previously interacted with ours? Ridiculous! That's not science - where's the evidence?

Atto, I'm also Australian. Here is a proper south-up map http://www.odt.org/Pictures/world100dpirgb.jpg
OK, so why does it seem to be human nature to want a map with the nearest pole at the top? I suppose it comes from looking at a globe, which is easier if oriented with the place you're looking at in the upper hemisphere. Does anybody put west or east at the top?
attofishpi
Posts: 4258
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

### Re: How does time work?

Noax wrote:Atto, I'm also Australian. Here is a proper south-up map http://www.odt.org/Pictures/world100dpirgb.jpgOK, so why does it seem to be human nature to want a map with the nearest pole at the top? I suppose it comes from looking at a globe, which is easier if oriented with the place you're looking at in the upper hemisphere. Does anybody put west or east at the top?
I shall use this map until i die - i just need to remember that East is left and West is right!
uwot
Posts: 5041
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

### Re: How does time work?

Greta. Er, I mean Noax. Sorry. wrote:Does anybody put west or east at the top?
Not any more, as far as I am aware, but medieval Christian Mappa Mundi generally had Jerusalem at the top, which from western Europe is eastwards. The east being the orient, any crusader or pilgrim that was not heading east was literally disoriented.
Glad you like the blog and thank you for the feedback.

Hereford Cathedral has as brilliant Mappa Mundi, which you can look at and even buy a copy from here: http://shop.themappamundi.co.uk/index.p ... duct_id=70
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

### Re: How does time work?

Like clockwork.
osgart
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

### Re: How does time work?

yes but is time a real force or is it an applied concept.?
Cerveny
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

### Re: How does time work?

osgart wrote:yes but is time a real force or is it an applied concept.?
The time is a real quality (density) of the physical reality because of some (other) real quality (e.g.forces) strictly depend on time derivation - there must exist a real (at least) two diferent time "snapshots"...
osgart
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

### Re: How does time work?

thank you
osgart
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

### Re: How does time work?

changes in the environment would be indicative of the force of time.

I would imagine time moving faster in other parts of the universe. however it's pretty consistent on earth. almost clockwork.
prothero
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 4:40 am

### Re: How does time work?

osgart wrote: Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:05 am changes in the environment would be indicative of the force of time.

I would imagine time moving faster in other parts of the universe. however it's pretty consistent on earth. almost clockwork.
What there is, is change, flux, process. Time is a secondary concept derived from the notion of change and representing the rate of relative change. Processes occur at different rates in different gravitational and inertial environments. Time itself as an independent, fixed, absolute does not exist. Newtonian time is an outdated concept. Likewise the notion of the universe as fixed, frozen, static or an iron block is outdated. The universe consists of processes, interactions, relations which imply change as fundamental and time as a derived secondary concept. Time is always measured relative to some change, the apparent rising of the sun, the change of the seasons, the swinging of a pendulum, the oscillations of a crystal or the vibrations of a cesium atom but outside of reference to these processes, time itself does not exist. The notion of time as an independent fixed entity is an illusion.
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

### Re: How does time work?

Cerveny wrote: Sat Apr 29, 2017 10:53 pm Time is a real quality.
Einstein proved it's only relative.
Dubious
Posts: 2505
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

### Re: How does time work?

Look in the mirror!
Cerveny
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

### Re: How does time work?

bobevenson wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:00 pm
Cerveny wrote: Sat Apr 29, 2017 10:53 pm Time is a real quality.
Einstein proved it's only relative.
Einstein has not proved anything. He supposed (right) limited speed (~~c) of universe growth/condensation only. The existence of aether/ physical space he realised too late... He misunderstood “growth/crystalisation” of the universe, he interpreted it as obscure “expansion”:(