So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

You still don't understand the question.
EB
jayjacobus
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

One definition for time is t(n+1)=t(n)+1 for all n.

This refers to the function of time.

Dates are used to refer to events. Dates are NOT an identity for t(n+1)=t(n)+1. A date is a span of time or the place in a sequence, not a function.

If there was no function of time there would be no dates because the current date would never change.
Greylorn Ell
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

The arguments in this thread were written by non-physicists who are unaware that if one synchronizes a pair of identical clocks parked side-by-side, then moves one of them upward by, let's say, 10 feet, the clocks are no longer synchronized. This is explained by General Relativity and experimentally verified.

I lacked the patience to peruse this entire thread, but in a half-hour of wasted study time found no post that indicated an awareness of this issue. Not a surprise, given that philosophers ignorant of basic physics dominate this forum.
GL
Skepdick
Posts: 5242
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

Greylorn Ell wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:32 am The arguments in this thread were written by non-physicists who are unaware that if one synchronizes a pair of identical clocks parked side-by-side, then moves one of them upward by, let's say, 10 feet, the clocks are no longer synchronized.
It depends on your notion of "synchronicity" and your notion of "clock"

Using vector clocks we can agree on the ordering of events even if we can't agree on their duration.

Think "joining threads" as the location of synchronicity.
attofishpi
Posts: 4475
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

Greylorn Ell wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:32 am The arguments in this thread were written by non-physicists who are unaware that if one synchronizes a pair of identical clocks parked side-by-side, then moves one of them upward by, let's say, 10 feet, the clocks are no longer synchronized. This is explained by General Relativity and experimentally verified.
I'm not sure why you insisted on 'upward', I guess you are talking about from the perspective of Earth and gravity? It doesn't matter, the fact that they have moved in relation to each other should render them out of synch.

I wonder whether two clocks accurate to within a zeptosecond of each other were to move apart a zeptometre, whether we would one day real eyes they are no longer synchronous...perhaps after an attosecond.
Skepdick
Posts: 5242
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

attofishpi wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:31 am I'm not sure why you insisted on 'upward', I guess you are talking about from the perspective of Earth and gravity? It doesn't matter, the fact that they have moved in relation to each other should render them out of synch.
If you are using the notion of "synchronisation" as in "open communication channel between two objects" then you can consider entanglement to be a form of "synchronisation".

Movement doesn't limit communication/interaction.

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/lis ... p?id=26878
attofishpi
Posts: 4475
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

Skepdick wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 12:59 pm
attofishpi wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:31 am I'm not sure why you insisted on 'upward', I guess you are talking about from the perspective of Earth and gravity? It doesn't matter, the fact that they have moved in relation to each other should render them out of synch.
If you are using the notion of "synchronisation" as in "open communication channel between two objects" then you can consider entanglement to be a form of "synchronisation".

Movement doesn't limit communication/interaction.

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/lis ... p?id=26878
I'm actually talking bollocks, just a bit of a thought experiment shared. I guess synchronisation is not the correct word, since the term must insist on a causal relationship (between the two clocks).

'Time measured' per each clock and there comparison is more accurate to what I am bollocking on about.

If two clocks are in the same point in space - then accelerate away from each other at precisely the same acceleration and maintain identical velocity, then return to the same point in space (all other factors - gravity etc not involved). then their 'time measured' should be identical.
Greylorn Ell
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

attofishpi wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 6:44 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 12:59 pm
attofishpi wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 11:31 am I'm not sure why you insisted on 'upward', I guess you are talking about from the perspective of Earth and gravity? It doesn't matter, the fact that they have moved in relation to each other should render them out of synch.
If you are using the notion of "synchronisation" as in "open communication channel between two objects" then you can consider entanglement to be a form of "synchronisation".

Movement doesn't limit communication/interaction.

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/lis ... p?id=26878

I'm actually talking bollocks, just a bit of a thought experiment shared. I guess synchronisation is not the correct word, since the term must insist on a causal relationship (between the two clocks).

'Time measured' per each clock and there comparison is more accurate to what I am bollocking on about.

If two clocks are in the same point in space - then accelerate away from each other at precisely the same acceleration and maintain identical velocity, then return to the same point in space (all other factors - gravity etc not involved). then their 'time measured' should be identical.
Unfortunately for your argument, if two clocks separate in spacetime, they cannot return to a starting point because it no longer exists. Spacetime is in flux. The universe is expanding, probably exponentially. The original starting point at the separation cannot be defined.
Greylorn Ell
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

Skepdick wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:13 am
Greylorn Ell wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:32 am The arguments in this thread were written by non-physicists who are unaware that if one synchronizes a pair of identical clocks parked side-by-side, then moves one of them upward by, let's say, 10 feet, the clocks are no longer synchronized.
It depends on your notion of "synchronicity" and your notion of "clock"

Using vector clocks we can agree on the ordering of events even if we can't agree on their duration.

Think "joining threads" as the location of synchronicity.
I've no clue as to what you mean by joining threads. You are coming across as a bullshit artist, and I'm sorry to find that. I'd love to find a competent interlocutor. GL
attofishpi
Posts: 4475
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

Greylorn Ell wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 7:42 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:13 am
Greylorn Ell wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 2:32 am The arguments in this thread were written by non-physicists who are unaware that if one synchronizes a pair of identical clocks parked side-by-side, then moves one of them upward by, let's say, 10 feet, the clocks are no longer synchronized.
It depends on your notion of "synchronicity" and your notion of "clock"

Using vector clocks we can agree on the ordering of events even if we can't agree on their duration.

Think "joining threads" as the location of synchronicity.
I've no clue as to what you mean by joining threads. You are coming across as a bullshit artist, and I'm sorry to find that. I'd love to find a competent interlocutor. GL
I think he is telling you that you are using the wrong term in 'synchronize'. You should be talking about the 'time measured' on each clock. Synchronisation requires some causal relationship between the two clocks.
Skepdick
Posts: 5242
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

Greylorn Ell wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 7:42 pm I've no clue as to what you mean by joining threads. You are coming across as a bullshit artist, and I'm sorry to find that. I'd love to find a competent interlocutor. GL
You said you have programming background, yes? You understand what concurrency/parallelism is, yes?

A "join" is a point in future where multiple concurrent time-lines (threads) collapse back into one. It's a synchronization technique.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork%E2%80%93join_model

Process synchronization refers to the idea that multiple processes are to join up or handshake at a certain point, in order to reach an agreement.
So you can think about it as two observers taking different paths through spacetime, who rendevouz at some other point in spacetime and compare notes on "how much time has passed since we parted ways?"

The thread that did more work "experienced more time".
attofishpi
Posts: 4475
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

.
Attachments
I fink Greylorn has spat the dummy.jpg (11.44 KiB) Viewed 260 times
Greylorn Ell
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

attofishpi wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 7:47 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 7:42 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:13 am
It depends on your notion of "synchronicity" and your notion of "clock"

Using vector clocks we can agree on the ordering of events even if we can't agree on their duration.

Think "joining threads" as the location of synchronicity.
I've no clue as to what you mean by joining threads. You are coming across as a bullshit artist, and I'm sorry to find that. I'd love to find a competent interlocutor. GL
I think he is telling you that you are using the wrong term in 'synchronize'. You should be talking about the 'time measured' on each clock. Synchronisation requires some causal relationship between the two clocks.
I prefer to keep my definitions as simple as possible, because complex definitions are commonly used to produce bullshit answers to interesting questions. My definition of synchronization is exemplified by a gang of Hollywood bank robbers about to execute a carefully timed plan. Their leader says to his (or her) henchmen: Set your watches to exactly 2pm on my three count. One, two, three. Everyone got it?

If you prefer an alternative definition of synchronicity, why not have the linguistic courtesy to use a different word to label it?
GL
attofishpi
Posts: 4475
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

That's the spirit, WELCOME BACK!!
Greylorn Ell
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

### Re: What's your answer to the most fundamental question concerning time?

attofishpi wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 2:20 am That's the spirit, WELCOME BACK!!
How could I resist the blandishments of thoughtful interloquitors, despite the forest fire burning just east of my domicile? -GL