Time has to exist, if it can be curved

[tillingborn]

There is a difference between relativistic and non-relativistic mass.

Could you explain what it is?

Also, the gravitational attraction in relativity theory is not just dependent on mass, it is also dependent on the pressure that the given mass is under. Increase the pressure of a given mass, and you increase its ability to curve space, which simulates a "gravitational attraction." It also increases its ability to curve time.

Is there anything other than mass than can exert pressure on mass?

Why wouldn't the mass increase as it speeds up? Why wouldn't space shrink as an object speeds up? Why wouldn't time slow down as an object speeds up? Why would anyone think that there is some absolute measure of space or time?

No idea. Why do you ask?

You say to thedoc:

Time itself exists, and governs the movements of a clock, which is why a watch that is accelerated close to light speed will slow down, it has nothing to do with its mechanical properties.

It's a bold claim. Do you have any idea as to how time and matter interact?

[SecularCauses]

There is a difference between relativistic and non-relativistic mass.

Could you explain what it is?

Also, the gravitational attraction in relativity theory is not just dependent on mass, it is also dependent on the pressure that the given mass is under. Increase the pressure of a given mass, and you increase its ability to curve space, which simulates a "gravitational attraction." It also increases its ability to curve time.

Is there anything other than mass than can exert pressure on mass?

Why wouldn't the mass increase as it speeds up? Why wouldn't space shrink as an object speeds up? Why wouldn't time slow down as an object speeds up? Why would anyone think that there is some absolute measure of space or time?

No idea. Why do you ask?

You say to thedoc:

Time itself exists, and governs the movements of a clock, which is why a watch that is accelerated close to light speed will slow down, it has nothing to do with its mechanical properties.

It's a bold claim. Do you have any idea as to how time and matter interact?

For example, the mass in the equation e = mc2 is not the same mass you use for Newtonian physics. Since space is not absolute, how can you say that a given mass will occupy a given space no matter how we measure space? If we could state such a thing, then space would be absolute, meaning, there would be some golden ruler out there in the cosmos that would tell us what the proper measure of space is for everyone, no matter where they are at in the cosmos. But, since no suh absolute ruler exists, and neither does any such absolute time clock for time, mass becomes malleable. It's different for different observers.

[SecularCauses]

There is a difference between relativistic and non-relativistic mass.

Could you explain what it is?

Also, the gravitational attraction in relativity theory is not just dependent on mass, it is also dependent on the pressure that the given mass is under. Increase the pressure of a given mass, and you increase its ability to curve space, which simulates a "gravitational attraction." It also increases its ability to curve time.

Is there anything other than mass than can exert pressure on mass?

Why wouldn't the mass increase as it speeds up? Why wouldn't space shrink as an object speeds up? Why wouldn't time slow down as an object speeds up? Why would anyone think that there is some absolute measure of space or time?

No idea. Why do you ask?

You say to thedoc:

Time itself exists, and governs the movements of a clock, which is why a watch that is accelerated close to light speed will slow down, it has nothing to do with its mechanical properties.

It's a bold claim. Do you have any idea as to how time and matter interact?

Mass curves space, and the space exerts "pressure" on mass. Otherwise, how does mass affect another mass at a great distance? Your body right now wants to fall to the ground, only because it wants to slide down an indentation in space caused by the earth's mass.

[tillingborn]

Mass curves space, and the space exerts "pressure" on mass. Otherwise, how does mass affect another mass at a great distance?

Well since you ask, I think it is refraction. I don't believe spacetime is any more than a mathematical tool. I don't see how it is supposed to interact with matter, rather I think it is more likely that just 'matter' exists and it behaves in ways that are predictable and measurable. I have outlined my thoughts in a thread entitled the bunniverse. It's a work in progress.

[SpheresOfBalance]

For those trumpeting the view that time is nothing more than a made-up fiction, and that one may contemplate its demise from our existence, then please explain how it is that time is curved.

Most people are familiar with the Einsteinian notion that the faster one travels, the slower time becomes. Most are also aware that a massive objects literally curves the space surrounding it, and that causes objects to fall into that curved space, which gives us the illusion of a gravitational force. Most people, however, do not realize that time also gets curved in addition to physical space by the presence of massive objects. For example, a clock on the surface of the earth moves slower than a clock on top of a tall building because the clock at the surface is closer to the curved time created by the earth's mass. Time itself moves differently between the two locations.
No, the clocks move differently in those two locations. How can one possibly know that time is changing, not that I believe it really exists at all.


Now, if time can be curved, just like space itself, then what is the reason for arguing that time is an illusion? How does an illusion get affected by mass? If time didn't exist, then massive objects should not be able to curve it.

What say those of you who believe that time is but a figment of our imagination?

Time is a figment of your imagination.

[SecularCauses]

For those trumpeting the view that time is nothing more than a made-up fiction, and that one may contemplate its demise from our existence, then please explain how it is that time is curved.

Most people are familiar with the Einsteinian notion that the faster one travels, the slower time becomes. Most are also aware that a massive objects literally curves the space surrounding it, and that causes objects to fall into that curved space, which gives us the illusion of a gravitational force. Most people, however, do not realize that time also gets curved in addition to physical space by the presence of massive objects. For example, a clock on the surface of the earth moves slower than a clock on top of a tall building because the clock at the surface is closer to the curved time created by the earth's mass. Time itself moves differently between the two locations.
No, the clocks move differently in those two locations. How can one possibly know that time is changing, not that I believe it really exists at all.


Now, if time can be curved, just like space itself, then what is the reason for arguing that time is an illusion? How does an illusion get affected by mass? If time didn't exist, then massive objects should not be able to curve it.

What say those of you who believe that time is but a figment of our imagination?

Time is a figment of your imagination.

A "figment of the imagination" that obeys the laws of physics? I don't think so. Time is embedded in the cosmos, it is a part of the cosmos, it is not merely a figment of our imagination. But, if it is just a figment of our imagination, then perhaps you can stand on train tracks in front of a run away train and simply imagine time stopping. You won't be able to walk away, but you won't get hit either. But, I doubt you will really trust time being a mere figment of your imagination, and you know as well as I that the train is likely to hit you, in real time.

[SecularCauses]

Mass curves space, and the space exerts "pressure" on mass. Otherwise, how does mass affect another mass at a great distance?

Well since you ask, I think it is refraction. I don't believe spacetime is any more than a mathematical tool. I don't see how it is supposed to interact with matter, rather I think it is more likely that just 'matter' exists and it behaves in ways that are predictable and measurable. I have outlined my thoughts in a thread entitled the bunniverse. It's a work in progress.

Matter behaves in ways that are predictable, but time is a fiction? The problem is that the way matter behaves is not what one would expect, and time itself is affected by matter. How can matter affect time if time is only something existing in our imagination, and not "out there"?

[tillingborn]

Matter behaves in ways that are predictable, but time is a fiction?

Well, yes. The fact that matter behaves in predictable ways is what makes science possible; the Earth goes round the sun, it spins on it's axis, pendula swing, atoms vibrate and people standing in front of moving trains get hit.

The problem is that the way matter behaves is not what one would expect, and time itself is affected by matter.

Well who, frankly, would 'expect' matter to even exist? You say that matter curves space, how do you think that happens. What mechanism mediates between matter and time?

How can matter affect time if time is only something existing in our imagination, and not "out there"?

I'm sorry, that is begging the question. Your evidence for time being curved is that clocks are affected by mass and velocity, the fact that these peculiarities can be described in terms of 4 dimensional spacetime is not proof that any dimension is more than relational and that is physically exists as a discrete entity.

[SpheresOfBalance]

For those trumpeting the view that time is nothing more than a made-up fiction, and that one may contemplate its demise from our existence, then please explain how it is that time is curved.

Most people are familiar with the Einsteinian notion that the faster one travels, the slower time becomes. Most are also aware that a massive objects literally curves the space surrounding it, and that causes objects to fall into that curved space, which gives us the illusion of a gravitational force. Most people, however, do not realize that time also gets curved in addition to physical space by the presence of massive objects. For example, a clock on the surface of the earth moves slower than a clock on top of a tall building because the clock at the surface is closer to the curved time created by the earth's mass. Time itself moves differently between the two locations.
No, the clocks move differently in those two locations. How can one possibly know that time is changing, not that I believe it really exists at all.


Now, if time can be curved, just like space itself, then what is the reason for arguing that time is an illusion? How does an illusion get affected by mass? If time didn't exist, then massive objects should not be able to curve it.

What say those of you who believe that time is but a figment of our imagination?

Time is a figment of your imagination.

A "figment of the imagination" that obeys the laws of physics? I don't think so. Time is embedded in the cosmos, it is a part of the cosmos, it is not merely a figment of our imagination. But, if it is just a figment of our imagination, then perhaps you can stand on train tracks in front of a run away train and simply imagine time stopping. You won't be able to walk away, but you won't get hit either. But, I doubt you will really trust time being a mere figment of your imagination, and you know as well as I that the train is likely to hit you, in real time.

No, my point went over your head, sorry I wasn't more clear. Since a clock doesn't actually measure anything at all except a particular arbitrary movement, one can not assert with certainty that the slowdown was attributed to that of time itself instead of merely the mechanism itself. The amount of slowdown recorded was nanoseconds, that's one billionth of a second (10−9(exp) or 1/1,000,000,000 s). Since there is no certain way to actually measure time itself, one cannot be certain that the slowdown wasn't the effect of some force, i.e. magnetic (magnetosphere), gravitational or otherwise, as it affected the mechanism itself. If I apply pressure to a pendulum fulcrum, thus creating friction, which in turn slows it down, I have merely slowed the mechanism, not time itself. Remember we're only talking about billionths of a sec. I see that the same could be true for atomic movements, i.e. that one cannot necessarily attribute any particular force to said slowdown because humans cannot selectively remove any particular force, so as to isolate time, especially those he knows nothing about, which is why 'today' it is still Einstein's 'theory' of relativity.

Edit: See QED, relativistic QFT, Caesium's (cesium) electronegativity, caesium clocks evaluated accuracy and CERN's particle accelerator as it pertains to electromagnetic fields and charged particles.

[SecularCauses]

Matter behaves in ways that are predictable, but time is a fiction?

Well, yes. The fact that matter behaves in predictable ways is what makes science possible; the Earth goes round the sun, it spins on it's axis, pendula swing, atoms vibrate and people standing in front of moving trains get hit.

The problem is that the way matter behaves is not what one would expect, and time itself is affected by matter.

Well who, frankly, would 'expect' matter to even exist? You say that matter curves space, how do you think that happens. What mechanism mediates between matter and time?

How can matter affect time if time is only something existing in our imagination, and not "out there"?

I'm sorry, that is begging the question. Your evidence for time being curved is that clocks are affected by mass and velocity, the fact that these peculiarities can be described in terms of 4 dimensional spacetime is not proof that any dimension is more than relational and that is physically exists as a discrete entity.

It's amazing how philosophy types pass of amazing levels of stupidity for scholarship by merely throwing out such phrases as "begging the question" when that des not even apply. You can't even see the contradiction in your own position. If you accept matter as real because it obeys physical las, but then reject the concept of time, although it too is subject to physical laws, it is you who has the explaining to do, not me. My position is based on scientific evidence, while yours is based on what? Fanciful ignorance.

[tillingborn]

You can't even see the contradiction in your own position. If you accept matter as real because it obeys physical las, but then reject the concept of time, although it too is subject to physical laws, it is you who has the explaining to do, not me.

As it happens my belief in matter is not based on anything so sophisticated; I believe in it because I can see it. If I look for time I cannot see it directly, I only see matter behaving in predictable ways. I don't, therefore, see the contradiction.

My position is based on scientific evidence, while yours is based on what? Fanciful ignorance.

Actually my position is based on exactly the same evidence. We both agree, I think, that all physical processes happen at different rates subject to velocity and gravity. Your claim, as I understand it, is that there is a substance called space-time that is warped by the above. Matter travelling through this material follows the convoluted path and to observers at a distance it appears that the same physical process in their inertial frame will complete before they do in the inertial frame being observed. Since the concept of time is so familiar the language they might use will be along the lines of 'time is slower in that inertial frame than ours'. Feel free to correct me if this is not your understanding.
From the same evidence I conclude that matter is affected directly by velocity and gravity, I have explained how I think velocity affects matter in a thread called Two atoms. I see no need to postulate a substance I cannot see and do not need.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You can't even see the contradiction in your own position. If you accept matter as real because it obeys physical las, but then reject the concept of time, although it too is subject to physical laws, it is you who has the explaining to do, not me.

As it happens my belief in matter is not based on anything so sophisticated; I believe in it because I can see it. If I look for time I cannot see it directly, I only see matter behaving in predictable ways. I don't, therefore, see the contradiction.

My position is based on scientific evidence, while yours is based on what? Fanciful ignorance.

Actually my position is based on exactly the same evidence. We both agree, I think, that all physical processes happen at different rates subject to velocity and gravity. Your claim, as I understand it, is that there is a substance called space-time that is warped by the above. Matter travelling through this material follows the convoluted path and to observers at a distance it appears that the same physical process in their inertial frame will complete before they do in the inertial frame being observed. Since the concept of time is so familiar the language they might use will be along the lines of 'time is slower in that inertial frame than ours'. Feel free to correct me if this is not your understanding.
From the same evidence I conclude that matter is affected directly by velocity and gravity, I have explained how I think velocity affects matter in a thread called Two atoms. I see no need to postulate a substance I cannot see and do not need.

As Kant said, 'time is not a thing, and cannot be traveled.' I see that it is a human concept that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with physical reality, that it is in fact an illusion so that man can count relative movement. If a planet is spinning in a universe of nothing more, is it?

Edit: typo in to is

[SecularCauses]

You can't even see the contradiction in your own position. If you accept matter as real because it obeys physical las, but then reject the concept of time, although it too is subject to physical laws, it is you who has the explaining to do, not me.

As it happens my belief in matter is not based on anything so sophisticated; I believe in it because I can see it. If I look for time I cannot see it directly, I only see matter behaving in predictable ways. I don't, therefore, see the contradiction.

My position is based on scientific evidence, while yours is based on what? Fanciful ignorance.

Actually my position is based on exactly the same evidence. We both agree, I think, that all physical processes happen at different rates subject to velocity and gravity. Your claim, as I understand it, is that there is a substance called space-time that is warped by the above. Matter travelling through this material follows the convoluted path and to observers at a distance it appears that the same physical process in their inertial frame will complete before they do in the inertial frame being observed. Since the concept of time is so familiar the language they might use will be along the lines of 'time is slower in that inertial frame than ours'. Feel free to correct me if this is not your understanding.
From the same evidence I conclude that matter is affected directly by velocity and gravity, I have explained how I think velocity affects matter in a thread called Two atoms. I see no need to postulate a substance I cannot see and do not need.

As Kant said, 'time is not a thing, and cannot be traveled.' I see that it is a human concept that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with physical reality, that it is in fact an illusion so that man can count relative movement. If a planet in spinning in a universe of nothing more, is it?

Kant was wrong about pretty much everything. I see no difference between the "philosophers" here and Christian fundies. While a Christian fundie will quote from the Bible to reject the evidence from science, philosophers will do something similar, quote from some dead philosopher wo didn't know much, and claim that as some source of knowledge. Science teaches people to look at the evidence, and not fall in love with names of people. Time curves, long with space, which means it is embedded in the cosmos, and is not something non-existent that only exists in the imagination of humans. Kant didn't even know about relativity theory when he started writing down his opinions. I'll stick with science, while you can stick with the irrational religion called philosophy.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You can't even see the contradiction in your own position. If you accept matter as real because it obeys physical las, but then reject the concept of time, although it too is subject to physical laws, it is you who has the explaining to do, not me.

As it happens my belief in matter is not based on anything so sophisticated; I believe in it because I can see it. If I look for time I cannot see it directly, I only see matter behaving in predictable ways. I don't, therefore, see the contradiction.

My position is based on scientific evidence, while yours is based on what? Fanciful ignorance.

Actually my position is based on exactly the same evidence. We both agree, I think, that all physical processes happen at different rates subject to velocity and gravity. Your claim, as I understand it, is that there is a substance called space-time that is warped by the above. Matter travelling through this material follows the convoluted path and to observers at a distance it appears that the same physical process in their inertial frame will complete before they do in the inertial frame being observed. Since the concept of time is so familiar the language they might use will be along the lines of 'time is slower in that inertial frame than ours'. Feel free to correct me if this is not your understanding.
From the same evidence I conclude that matter is affected directly by velocity and gravity, I have explained how I think velocity affects matter in a thread called Two atoms. I see no need to postulate a substance I cannot see and do not need.

As Kant said, 'time is not a thing, and cannot be traveled.' I see that it is a human concept that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with physical reality, that it is in fact an illusion so that man can count relative movement. If a planet is spinning in a universe of nothing more, is it?

Kant was wrong about pretty much everything. I see no difference between the "philosophers" here and Christian fundies. While a Christian fundie will quote from the Bible to reject the evidence from science, philosophers will do something similar, quote from some dead philosopher wo didn't know much, and claim that as some source of knowledge. Science teaches people to look at the evidence, and not fall in love with names of people. Time curves, long with space, which means it is embedded in the cosmos, and is not something non-existent that only exists in the imagination of humans. Kant didn't even know about relativity theory when he started writing down his opinions. I'll stick with science, while you can stick with the irrational religion called philosophy.

Science doesn't prove time! Prove it!

[SecularCauses]

Science doesn't prove time! Prove it!

[/quote]

LOL. You really do need to join up with the Christian fundies. You can proclaim Kant and his idiocy as a prophet of god, like jebus and company. You can tell each other your imaginary friend jebus is real, but time is not. Won't that be fun?