A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Mike Strand
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:54 am
Location: USA

Re: A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

Post by Mike Strand »

Of course, clocks are not perfectly uniform, but probably more uniform than the repetitions of events in general processes. One only needs a process which, according to other "knowledge", like the physical properties of springs or atom vibrations, has relatively uniform repetitions, and thus can be used in practice to measure duration of other processes -- as you apparently were trying to do in your theory.

I can count or observe another process that is still going after my process ends by simple observation -- as simple as your assumption that simultaneity of the beginnings of your processes can be determined in your thought experiment.

OK, you could have let me know much sooner that I was mistaken to assume your theory included processes with repeating events. You suggested this in your original post.

Are you still claiming durations can be calculated and assigned numerical values in your theory? Just show me and your other readers, for example, with two processes, instead of three: "Process a" ending first, "Process b" last. No repeating events within either process, but we assume they start at the same time and that we can see which one ends "before" the other. I think all you can say is that "process b" lasts longer than "process a", but you have little for assigning numbers to the durations except arbitrarily, such as assigning any number x to "process a" and then choose a larger number y to assign to "process b", to preserve the idea that "process b" lasted the longer of the two. That's fine, but I think we can go further than that -- all the way to clocks -- without going against the spirit of your thought experiment/theory.

Forget clocks -- just have a human with a lot of patience as an outside observer to start counting and marking slashes and asterisks on a sheet of paper to measure the duration of your three processes. Approximate but effective for many purposes.
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

Post by The Voice of Time »

Mike Strand wrote:Of course, clocks are not perfectly uniform, but probably more uniform than the repetitions of events in general processes. One only needs a process which, according to other "knowledge", like the physical properties of springs or atom vibrations, has relatively uniform repetitions, and thus can be used in practice to measure duration of other processes -- as you apparently were trying to do in your theory.
no, I wasn't trying to do that! Uniformity doesn't exist because something can only be uniform in relation to something else, and the implication of that is that you'll first have to say that one thing is absolutely uniform before you can state that other things are uniform...

I'm just trying to find the least-disparity, which of course could substitute clocks in favor of a superior way of measuring, but that isn't my aim only a side-effect of my aim. And the problem with 2 processes is one of principle, it is the exception of the rule, as you can't compare 2 processes without a third reference, and you can't compare one process with anything if you chose to use one of the two processes as a reference.

But now I'm getting a headache from all this logic! :lol: please tell me we agree now?
Mike Strand
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:54 am
Location: USA

Re: A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

Post by Mike Strand »

Yes, trying to write clearly can lead to headaches. And I got the impression from your original post that you were trying to come up with measures of duration without clocks. And I asked for a numerical example, a typical way to ask any theorist to illustrate his theory. I'm sorry if that isn't possible in this case.

Absolute uniformity of repetition is like the perfect circle -- it only exists conceptually, as a definition in geometry. Uniformity in repetition is conceptualized by the theory of pendulum motion or atomic vibrations. In practice, these can only be approximated, albeit these days with high precision. We don't stop measuring durations just because we can't do it perfectly, and the ways we do it, I think, are in line with your "knowledge of time" thought experiment -- they just take it further.

I was hoping you could use my "drips, notes, and puffs" example to illustrate calculation of duration. Can you use it at least to illustrate finding your "least disparity"?

I appeal to other readers, if any:

1. Can you make any sense of Voice of Time's theory?
2. Can you make any sense of my comments on, or interpretation of, V of T's theory?
3. Does anyone else have a better approach to explaining or illustrating V of T's theory?

Is anyone else following (with interest) these latest exchanges?
User avatar
Bernard
Posts: 758
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:19 am

Re: A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

Post by Bernard »

I find it difficult to follow, and just going off the feeling VOT's original post incites in me - which has not necessarily anything to do with it's content - I sense a necessity to describe time in another manner to arrive more accurately at what it really is - in terms of how we experience without the bias the clock has taught us, to wit: a standard measurement which is conformed to without reference to actual (subjective) experiential measurement. Time is regarded then as something more like an intensity that is perhaps malleable. Your responses seem to want to maintain conformance with a standardised measurement of some sort rather than with variations of localised packets of experience that occur within a standard form but that contradict the laws of that standard. I think the question he is asking is how to formulate the relation between standard perception of time and subjective/experiential.
Mike Strand
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:54 am
Location: USA

Re: A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

Post by Mike Strand »

Thanks, Bernard! But if V of T is more concerned with a subjective/experiential characterization, why the equations in his original post?

What's your reaction to this, Voice of Time?
User avatar
The Voice of Time
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
Location: Norway

Re: A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

Post by The Voice of Time »

Mike Strand wrote:Thanks, Bernard! But if V of T is more concerned with a subjective/experiential characterization, why the equations in his original post?

What's your reaction to this, Voice of Time?
All formalities have their nature Mike Strand. Every formal sentence can be converted to its natural equivalent. So did the logical folk of last century and the century before that try to explain us by ever making these arcane systems appear in forms more real (though more complex).

Numbers, equations, are nature like everything else. That something is (inter)subjective doesn't mean it contradicts logic and formality. When you learn math you count apples and then take some apples away to learn subtraction, and so forth. You use your personal subjective experience to know the nature of math.

To say that Bernard is right I would not, but he's neither completely wrong. It's still least-disparity I'm after. But there is a kind-of formulation as Bernard noted that may have to be in place, yes, and my post may be partly seen as this, yes.
Mike Strand
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:54 am
Location: USA

Re: A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

Post by Mike Strand »

OK, I agree with what you say here:
Numbers, equations, are nature like everything else. That something is (inter)subjective doesn't mean it contradicts logic and formality.
So can we agree that your theory of relative time entails logic and formality? -- even equations which describe what to do with numbers? So then can you show us how to use these equations with the numbers in my example to come up with your "least disparity", or (dare I ask) durations for the three processes?

Maybe you have underestimated the power of your own theory, and I encourage you to apply it to a concrete example by way of illustrating it for us - my example or one of your choosing. It's a time-honored way for a theoretician to better explain his idea to others and to give it credence.

By the way, and this may be along the lines you are thinking, it can be shown with algebra (or just inspection of dots on a line) that if x<y<z, then the average distance between y and the two other quantities (x and z) is less than the average distance between x and the other two, or z and the other two. This holds for any positive numbers x, y, and z where x<y<z. Does this have anything to do with your "process b" (lasting longer than "a" but shorter than "c") being the "least-disparity" process?
Mark Question
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:20 am

Re: A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

Post by Mark Question »

In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead.
User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

Post by Hjarloprillar »

The problem with initial post is.

No time dilation. Its all about subjective.
But time dilation IS. PHYSICAL. not psychological.

No-one went to nearC and returned.
Thus the post is psychology.. not Einsteinian relativity in its perspective.
If i travel to tau ceti and back at .999 C My daughter is now older than me.
Its 2036. but i left in 2012 on a 6 month trip.

Time is not psychologically relevant.[ except to 'after' the case]
Time
It is a real thing. that is plastic.

The time on your watch is dependent on you motion through space

wake up

Prill
User avatar
John
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:05 pm
Location: Near Glasgow, Scotland

Re: A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

Post by John »

Mark Question wrote:In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead.
Is this the Usain Bolt's Bad Start paradox? :lol:
User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

Post by Hjarloprillar »

John wrote:
Mark Question wrote:In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead.
Is this the Usain Bolt's Bad Start paradox? :lol:

no it's the paradox you saw in a movie. You remade it to seem like you were not getting entire idea from the movie

in the movie it was an arrow
User avatar
John
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:05 pm
Location: Near Glasgow, Scotland

Re: A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

Post by John »

Hjarloprillar wrote:
John wrote:
Mark Question wrote:In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead.
Is this the Usain Bolt's Bad Start paradox? :lol:

no it's the paradox you saw in a movie. You remade it to seem like you were not getting entire idea from the movie

in the movie it was an arrow
When did you get your sense of humour bypass?
Mike Strand
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:54 am
Location: USA

Re: A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

Post by Mike Strand »

Prill: I think V of T was only concerned with "local time", without the effects of relativity -- the kind of time we use to determine outcomes in horse races and Olympic events.

V of T's idea may be related to ideas in statistical theory in which the aim is to find a point or locus of points with a least average distance (or least average squared distance) from a given set of points. This is related to V of T's idea of "least-disparity", I think. In the case of three points on a line, corresponding to the durations of his three processes, if the choice is restricted to one of the three points, that would be the middle point. In a way, the middle point serves to "represent" the other two.
User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

Post by Hjarloprillar »

John wrote: When did you get your sense of humour bypass?
what is a bypass?
User avatar
Hjarloprillar
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:36 am
Location: Sol sector.

Re: A Theory of Relative Time made by me and nobody else!

Post by Hjarloprillar »

Local time..

Zenos paradox

Aristotle's objection to the arrow paradox was that "Time is not composed of indivisible nows any more than any other magnitude is composed of indivisibles." Saint Thomas Aquinas, commenting on Aristotle's objection, wrote "Instants are not parts of time, for time is not made up of instants any more than a magnitude is made of points, as we have already proved. Hence it does not follow that a thing is not in motion in a given time, just because it is not in motion in any instant of that time." Bertrand Russell offered what is known as the "at-at theory of motion". It agrees that there can be no motion "during" a durationless instant, and contends that all that is required for motion is that the arrow be at one point at one time, at another point another time, and at appropriate points between those two points for intervening times. In this view motion is a function of position with respect to time.

The arrow of time ;)

Personally i believe most of what zeno said was crap.

Prill
Post Reply