Seeing Time

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3184
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by bahman »

jayjacobus wrote: Tue Dec 26, 2017 3:12 am
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:20 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 5:26 pm
Does gravity change over time? It seems to me that the answer is no. The formula for gravity does not include time. So, I deduce that gravity could exist in one state without motion.
Yes, formula explains the nature of gravity. The amount of gravity is subject to change depending on distribution and movement of mass.
You seem to be saying that the force of gravity is a function of change in mass. But gravity is a function of mass not change in mass.
I didn't say that.
jayjacobus
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus »

bahman wrote: Tue Dec 26, 2017 3:11 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Tue Dec 26, 2017 3:12 am
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:20 pm

Yes, formula explains the nature of gravity. The amount of gravity is subject to change depending on distribution and movement of mass.
You seem to be saying that the force of gravity is a function of change in mass. But gravity is a function of mass not change in mass.
I didn't say that.
Some posts that you make seem to disagree with my logic. You have never written, "Good point".
jayjacobus
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus »

Don't let me dissuade you from posting. I expect challenges. Editors have told me I am not cogent or I am trivial. Your posts may tell me why they say that.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3184
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by bahman »

You said:

"Does gravity change over time? It seems to me that the answer is no. The formula for gravity does not include time. So, I deduce that gravity could exist in one state without motion."

I said:

"Yes, formula explains the nature of gravity. The amount of gravity is subject to change depending on distribution and movement of mass."

I should have wrote:

"Yes, gravity changes over time. The formula explain the nature of gravity. The amount of gravity is subject to change depending on distribution and movement of mass."

Can we start from here to see what is the problem maybe misunderstanding in our conversation?
jayjacobus
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus »

Yes gravity can change over time but that does not mean that gravity doesn't exist without time. The formula suggests that gravity doesn't need time to exert its force. But even if gravity is not the reason for time there should be a force(?) that is the reason for time and that force must exist without time. I'm going backwards and thinking "how can there be time without time?" There must be an answer. Gravity is what comes to my mind.

The way it stands now is movement creates (relational) time and time frees up objects to move. That can'rt be right. There needs to be a better explanation. My explanation may not be right but it seems plausible to me.
Last edited by jayjacobus on Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3184
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by bahman »

jayjacobus wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:43 pm Yes gravity can change over time but that does not mean that gravity doesn't exist without time.
Everything is static without time. Time allows change.
jayjacobus wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:43 pm The formula suggests that gravity doesn't need time to exert its force.
The Einstein equation of general relativity is time dependent. Gravitation wave is observed recently. That means that the gravity propagates over time.
jayjacobus wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:43 pm But even if gravity is not the reason for time there should be a force(?) that is the reason for time and that force must exist without time. I'm going backwards and thinking "how can there be time without time?" There must be an answer. Gravity is what comes to my mind.
I cannot follow you here. Time without time? Time doesn't need a force to move.
jayjacobus
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus »

bahman wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:50 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:43 pm Yes gravity can change over time but that does not mean that gravity doesn't exist without time.
The reason that matter can't move without time is because matter can't exist in two places in the same state. But force seems to exist in many states whether there is time or not. In other words force is in state 1, state 3, state 3 and all states expanding outward from mass.

bahman wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:50 pm
Everything is static without time. Time allows change.
Time allows change in matter but is not necessarily needed in some waves like gravity waves. I don't know this but it seems plausible.

The formula for gravity suggests suggests that gravity doesn't need time to exert its force.
bahman wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:50 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:43 pm
But even if gravity is not the reason for time there should be a force(?) that is the reason for time and that force must exist without time. I'm going backwards and thinking "how can there be time without time?" There must be an answer. Gravity is what comes to my mind.
I cannot follow you here. Time without time? Time doesn't need a force to move.
Time is a sequence of states (I suggest). Something needs to open and close states. Otherwise there is only one state and then there would not be time. Time may not be an operation but it must come from an operation. Even if the opening and closing of states has no cause, the change in states is an operation. But how can an operation have no cause?
jayjacobus
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus »

If travel is only a noun, there needs to be a word that means to travel but that is fairly general. Drive, walk, fly are more specific.

Time is not a verb and there is no specific words that mean passing time. Passing time is too general. Change in states is more specific.
Part of the problem in writing about this subject is the lack of accepted terminoology.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3184
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by bahman »

jayjacobus wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:25 pm The reason that matter can't move without time is because matter can't exist in two places in the same state.
That is a very correct statement. :)
jayjacobus wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:25 pm But force seems to exist in many states whether there is time or not. In other words force is in state 1, state 3, state 3 and all states expanding outward from mass.
No. Forces are made of particles as mater made of particles.
jayjacobus wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:25 pm Time allows change in matter but is not necessarily needed in some waves like gravity waves. I don't know this but it seems plausible.

The formula for gravity suggests suggests that gravity doesn't need time to exert its force.
Which formula are you talking about?
jayjacobus wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:25 pm Time is a sequence of states (I suggest). Something needs to open and close states. Otherwise there is only one state and then there would not be time. Time may not be an operation but it must come from an operation. Even if the opening and closing of states has no cause, the change in states is an operation. But how can an operation have no cause?
Sequence or stream. I don't know. Time is beyond other phenomena. To me it doesn't need a cause it order to operate. Otherwise you end up with the contradiction, time needs time.
jayjacobus
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus »

bahman wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:54 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:25 pm But force seems to exist in many states whether there is time or not. In other words force is in state 1, state 3, state 3 and all states expanding outward from mass.
No. Forces are made of particles as mater made of particles.
Force and matter are two different concepts. But can you see that matter will exist with only one never ending state\? So won't force exist with one never ending state?
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:54 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:25 pm Time allows change in matter but is not necessarily needed in some waves like gravity waves. I don't know this but it seems plausible.

The formula for gravity suggests suggests that gravity doesn't need time to exert its force.
Which formula are you talking about?
F=G(M1*M2)/r^2
where:
F is the force between the masses;
G is the gravitational constant (6.674×10−11 N · (m/kg)2);
m1 is the first mass;
m2 is the second mass;
r is the distance between the centers of the masses.
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 3:54 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:25 pm Time is a sequence of states (I suggest). Something needs to open and close states. Otherwise there is only one state and then there would not be time. Time may not be an operation but it must come from an operation. Even if the opening and closing of states has no cause, the change in states is an operation. But how can an operation have no cause?
Sequence or stream. I don't know. Time is beyond other phenomena. To me it doesn't need a cause it order to operate. Otherwise you end up with the contradiction, time needs time.
There already is a contradiction: Time comes from motion and motion requires time. I want to define time without referring to motion.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3184
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by bahman »

jayjacobus wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:29 pm Force and matter are two different concepts. But can you see that matter will exist with only one never ending state\? So won't force exist with one never ending state?
Yes, force and matter are different things but they are both made of particles. In this regards, you need time to allow change in them.
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:29 pm F=G(M1*M2)/r^2
where:
F is the force between the masses;
G is the gravitational constant (6.674×10−11 N · (m/kg)2);
m1 is the first mass;
m2 is the second mass;
r is the distance between the centers of the masses.
No. I was talking about Einstein general relativity formula: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations.
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:29 pm There already is a contradiction: Time comes from motion and motion requires time. I want to define time without referring to motion.
Time doesn't come from motion. Time allows motion.
jayjacobus
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus »

bahman wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:29 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:29 pm Force and matter are two different concepts. But can you see that matter will exist with only one never ending state\? So won't force exist with one never ending state?
Yes, force and matter are different things but they are both made of particles. In this regards, you need time to allow change in them.
But if they don't change, they still exist. So, they don't need time to exist.
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:29 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:29 pm F=G(M1*M2)/r^2
where:
F is the force between the masses;
G is the gravitational constant (6.674×10−11 N · (m/kg)2);
m1 is the first mass;
m2 is the second mass;
r is the distance between the centers of the masses.
No. I was talking about Einstein general relativity formula: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations.
That's off topic. I haven't used Einstein's formulas and don't need to.
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:29 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:29 pm There already is a contradiction: Time comes from motion and motion requires time. I want to define time without referring to motion.
Time doesn't come from motion. Time allows motion.
Because states change and gravity waves change states. Maybe?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3184
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by bahman »

jayjacobus wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:07 pm But if they don't change, they still exist. So, they don't need time to exist.
Yes, they don't need time to exist but they need time to change.
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:07 pm That's off topic. I haven't used Einstein's formulas and don't need to.
No, it is quite relevant. The Einstein's formula explain the nature of gravity.
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:07 pm Because states change and gravity waves change states. Maybe?
I don't understand what you are talking about.
jayjacobus
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus »

bahman wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:29 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:07 pm But if they don't change, they still exist. So, they don't need time to exist.
Yes, they don't need time to exist but they need time to change.
But force has an effect and the effect is change. In other words change arises from force waves.
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:29 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:07 pm That's off topic. I haven't used Einstein's formulas and don't need to.
No, it is quite relevant. The Einstein's formula explain the nature of gravity.
Of course it's relevant but not to this topic. Did Einstein say that gravity effects time? If he did, then he and I are in agreement. If he didn't then he didn't address my topic. In fact he didn't address my topic specifically.
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:29 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:07 pm Because states change and gravity waves change states. Maybe?
I don't understand what you are talking about.
I can see that. Try to explain how time exists. Or accept my explanation. It really is quite easy.
jayjacobus
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Seeing Time

Post by jayjacobus »

jayjacobus wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:46 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:29 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:07 pm But if they don't change, they still exist. So, they don't need time to exist.
Yes, they don't need time to exist but they need time to change.
But force has an effect and the effect is change. In other words change arises from force waves.
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:29 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:07 pm That's off topic. I haven't used Einstein's formulas and don't need to.
No, it is quite relevant. The Einstein's formula explain the nature of gravity.
Of course it's relevant but not to this topic. Did Einstein say that gravity effects time? If he did, then he and I are in agreement. If he didn't, then he didn't address my topic. In fact he didn't address my topic specifically.
bahman wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:29 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:07 pm Because states change and gravity waves change states. Maybe?
I don't understand what you are talking about.
I can see that. Try to explain how time exists. Or accept my explanation. It really is quite easy.
Post Reply