Time

[ForgedinHell]

Time is a real dimension, and according to the special theory, we are all traveling at the speed of light, all of us, but through 4 dimensions. Three of the dimensions are space, and the fourth is time. A simple way to think of it is imagine just two spatial dimensions. You drive 50 miles per hour in the north direction. After one hour, you have traveled 50 miles. (I know it's actually less for the traveler, but this is to illustrate a basic idea.) Now, let's say, instead of traveling north, you travel north-west, 45 degrees above the western line. After traveling one hour at 50 miles per hour, you have traveled less than 50 miles north. The reason? Because some of your travel was done in the other direction.

The faster we travel through physical space, the less we travel through the time dimension. This is why for a photon time stands still. The photon travels at the speed of light through space, so there is nothing left over to travel through the time dimension. A photon that has been traveling for billions of years has not aged even the tiniest fraction of a second in all that time.

Time is something real, it can be measured empirically.
There is no definitive proof that it can or ever has been measured. The results of the atomic clock comparison does not necessarily prove what they say it proves, as it's not the only possible causal that could account for the difference.

What show? I never watched a show, I actually read books, including physics textbooks. My point was that time is an empirical issue, which science addressed, not philosophy. Like the guy thinking up the space-alien situation, thinking he "proved" time does not exist. Give me a break. Philosophy that over extends itself into physical science is just as pointless, just as dangerous and misguided as religious creationists claiming evolution didn't happen.

What show? My point was that time is something for science to deal with, and we need to look at empirical evidence. The above explanation I gave shows the dangers in the one user fantasizing about space aliens, somehow "proving" that time does not exist.

But, because it is relative, meaning, that there is no clock located somewhere in space that keeps track of absolute time, we cannot use time for physical calculations. Since time is dependent on the observer, if an equation calls for time, what time do we put in? Similarly, since space is also not absolute, if an equation calls for length (a space measure) or distance, what do we use? That's why physicists, when dealing with non-ordinary events for which Newtonian mechanics works fine, they use the invariant called space-time. While space is variable, and time is variable, space-time is invariant, that is, all observers agree on its value, except in those cases where the observers are so far removed, the order of events has no effect on causality.

Philosophy cannot address scientific issues, only science can. Philosophy can only address non-science issues, and that, only if realism is false.

Yes I saw the show too, it's BS!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Time is a real dimension, and according to the special theory, we are all traveling at the speed of light, all of us, but through 4 dimensions. Three of the dimensions are space, and the fourth is time. A simple way to think of it is imagine just two spatial dimensions. You drive 50 miles per hour in the north direction. After one hour, you have traveled 50 miles. (I know it's actually less for the traveler, but this is to illustrate a basic idea.) Now, let's say, instead of traveling north, you travel north-west, 45 degrees above the western line. After traveling one hour at 50 miles per hour, you have traveled less than 50 miles north. The reason? Because some of your travel was done in the other direction.

The faster we travel through physical space, the less we travel through the time dimension. This is why for a photon time stands still. The photon travels at the speed of light through space, so there is nothing left over to travel through the time dimension. A photon that has been traveling for billions of years has not aged even the tiniest fraction of a second in all that time.

Time is something real, it can be measured empirically.
There is no definitive proof that it can or ever has been measured. The results of the atomic clock comparison does not necessarily prove what they say it proves, as it's not the only possible causal that could account for the difference.

What show? I never watched a show, I actually read books, including physics textbooks. My point was that time is an empirical issue, which science addressed, not philosophy. Like the guy thinking up the space-alien situation, thinking he "proved" time does not exist. Give me a break. Philosophy that over extends itself into physical science is just as pointless, just as dangerous and misguided as religious creationists claiming evolution didn't happen.

What show? My point was that time is something for science to deal with, and we need to look at empirical evidence. The above explanation I gave shows the dangers in the one user fantasizing about space aliens, somehow "proving" that time does not exist.

But, because it is relative, meaning, that there is no clock located somewhere in space that keeps track of absolute time, we cannot use time for physical calculations. Since time is dependent on the observer, if an equation calls for time, what time do we put in? Similarly, since space is also not absolute, if an equation calls for length (a space measure) or distance, what do we use? That's why physicists, when dealing with non-ordinary events for which Newtonian mechanics works fine, they use the invariant called space-time. While space is variable, and time is variable, space-time is invariant, that is, all observers agree on its value, except in those cases where the observers are so far removed, the order of events has no effect on causality.

Philosophy cannot address scientific issues, only science can. Philosophy can only address non-science issues, and that, only if realism is false.

Yes I saw the show too, it's BS!

Don't give me that crap, your examples are almost verbatim. The funny part is the show is currently on USA PBS stations during this month, you should have waited for a little while at least.

[ForgedinHell]

What show? I never watched a show, I actually read books, including physics textbooks. My point was that time is an empirical issue, which science addressed, not philosophy. Like the guy thinking up the space-alien situation, thinking he "proved" time does not exist. Give me a break. Philosophy that over extends itself into physical science is just as pointless, just as dangerous and misguided as religious creationists claiming evolution didn't happen.

What show? My point was that time is something for science to deal with, and we need to look at empirical evidence. The above explanation I gave shows the dangers in the one user fantasizing about space aliens, somehow "proving" that time does not exist.

Don't give me that crap, your examples are almost verbatim. The funny part is the show is currently on USA PBS stations during this month, you should have waited for a little while at least.[/color]

Screw you, then. I have no idea what BS show you are even writing about. You seriously assume that people only get their information from TV? Perhaps, the people who made the show were familiar with the same science I am, so the show would be similar to the points I made? Of course, expecting you to reason that far is expecting too much.

[SpheresOfBalance]

What show? I never watched a show, I actually read books, including physics textbooks. My point was that time is an empirical issue, which science addressed, not philosophy. Like the guy thinking up the space-alien situation, thinking he "proved" time does not exist. Give me a break. Philosophy that over extends itself into physical science is just as pointless, just as dangerous and misguided as religious creationists claiming evolution didn't happen.

What show? My point was that time is something for science to deal with, and we need to look at empirical evidence. The above explanation I gave shows the dangers in the one user fantasizing about space aliens, somehow "proving" that time does not exist.

Don't give me that crap, your examples are almost verbatim. The funny part is the show is currently on USA PBS stations during this month, you should have waited for a little while at least.[/color]

Screw you, then. I have no idea what BS show you are even writing about. You seriously assume that people only get their information from TV? Perhaps, the people who made the show were familiar with the same science I am, so the show would be similar to the points I made? Of course, expecting you to reason that far is expecting too much.

Incorrect, I'm way ahead of you. It was in fact a documentary, dealing with the physics of Einstein and the like, that's not the point, you are the one that believed that the show was quackery, opposing the belief systems of the day, without asking, and started to side step the association, without knowing. I'm saying that there is no way to know that time exists or that it's measurable, as it cannot be absolutely proven to have ever been measured, it's merely supposition. The question is: what forces 'could possibly' be responsible for the deviation, but the problem is in proving which one it was, as their might be unknowns, and still, even if not, it's just as difficult to prove.

[ForgedinHell]

What show? I never watched a show, I actually read books, including physics textbooks. My point was that time is an empirical issue, which science addressed, not philosophy. Like the guy thinking up the space-alien situation, thinking he "proved" time does not exist. Give me a break. Philosophy that over extends itself into physical science is just as pointless, just as dangerous and misguided as religious creationists claiming evolution didn't happen.

What show? My point was that time is something for science to deal with, and we need to look at empirical evidence. The above explanation I gave shows the dangers in the one user fantasizing about space aliens, somehow "proving" that time does not exist.

Don't give me that crap, your examples are almost verbatim. The funny part is the show is currently on USA PBS stations during this month, you should have waited for a little while at least.[/color]

Screw you, then. I have no idea what BS show you are even writing about. You seriously assume that people only get their information from TV? Perhaps, the people who made the show were familiar with the same science I am, so the show would be similar to the points I made? Of course, expecting you to reason that far is expecting too much.

Incorrect, I'm way ahead of you. It was in fact a documentary, dealing with the physics of Einstein and the like, that's not the point, you are the one that believed that the show was quackery, opposing the belief systems of the day, without asking, and started to side step the association, without knowing. I'm saying that there is no way to know that time exists or that it's measurable, as it cannot be absolutely proven to have ever been measured, it's merely supposition. The question is: what forces 'could possibly' be responsible for the deviation, but the problem is in proving which one it was, as their might be unknowns, and still, even if not, it's just as difficult to prove.

Are you really that stupid? I was accused of getting my information from a TV show. I didn't. That's what I stated. Then, I was called a liar. And you think, what? Because I didn't ask for specifics on the show, I'm a liar? How about this: Since I know my information did not come from me watching a TV show, it was 100% irrelevant for me to ask for any information about the show. There are certainly a lot of irrational people on here. Try to use some logic.

[SpheresOfBalance]

What show? I never watched a show, I actually read books, including physics textbooks. My point was that time is an empirical issue, which science addressed, not philosophy. Like the guy thinking up the space-alien situation, thinking he "proved" time does not exist. Give me a break. Philosophy that over extends itself into physical science is just as pointless, just as dangerous and misguided as religious creationists claiming evolution didn't happen.

What show? My point was that time is something for science to deal with, and we need to look at empirical evidence. The above explanation I gave shows the dangers in the one user fantasizing about space aliens, somehow "proving" that time does not exist.

Don't give me that crap, your examples are almost verbatim. The funny part is the show is currently on USA PBS stations during this month, you should have waited for a little while at least.

Screw you, then. I have no idea what BS show you are even writing about. You seriously assume that people only get their information from TV? Perhaps, the people who made the show were familiar with the same science I am, so the show would be similar to the points I made? Of course, expecting you to reason that far is expecting too much.

Incorrect, I'm way ahead of you. It was in fact a documentary, dealing with the physics of Einstein and the like, that's not the point, you are the one that believed that the show was quackery, opposing the belief systems of the day, without asking, and started to side step the association, without knowing. I'm saying that there is no way to know that time exists or that it's measurable, as it cannot be absolutely proven to have ever been measured, it's merely supposition. The question is: what forces 'could possibly' be responsible for the deviation, but the problem is in proving which one it was, as their might be unknowns, and still, even if not, it's just as difficult to prove.

Are you really that stupid? I was accused of getting my information from a TV show. I didn't. That's what I stated. Then, I was called a liar. And you think, what? Because I didn't ask for specifics on the show, I'm a liar? How about this: Since I know my information did not come from me watching a TV show, it was 100% irrelevant for me to ask for any information about the show. There are certainly a lot of irrational people on here. Try to use some logic.

You just proved you the illogical one and not I, as you admit that you saw my initial comment as an accusation, of some guilt, of which one should be ashamed, that you took offense before knowing if I intended offense. In fact I denounced the show and not you, my point was that you gave no reference to your source, all people continually do that here, so do I, and does it really matter if it's a book or a show, it's the same thing. It's still us reciting something we heard elsewhere. The only reason I mentioned it is because it's the second time I've seen the show and that it's currently being aired, as you recited much of it, almost verbatim. I never saw it as much of a big deal as you apparently have. I see that in a tit for tat exchange, shortsightedness on both our parts, caused escalation. As with many fools on this board, we got lost in our competitive nature, losing sight of the truth of the topic of discussion.

[ForgedinHell]

[quote="SpheresOfBalance"]

I saw the statement as erroneous drivel, which I corrected. Put it this way, do you have any proof to support your bull crap? No. Why? Because everything I wrote is perfectly consistent with a person who reads and who did not watch any alleged TV show. So, how are you going to prove your assertion? You're not. And since you have repeatedly made it, without proof, that shows you are irrational, not me.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I saw the statement as erroneous drivel, which I corrected. Put it this way, do you have any proof to support your bull crap? No. Why? Because everything I wrote is perfectly consistent with a person who reads and who did not watch any alleged TV show. So, how are you going to prove your assertion? You're not. And since you have repeatedly made it, without proof, that shows you are irrational, not me.

What part of, 'it doesn't matter' is too much for your thick skull? Whereas your report is simply parroting, regardless of the source, mine is of my own mind. Granted it is informed of other sources, as is all higher education, but still it is I that has put more of himself into this topic.

[ForgedinHell]

I saw the statement as erroneous drivel, which I corrected. Put it this way, do you have any proof to support your bull crap? No. Why? Because everything I wrote is perfectly consistent with a person who reads and who did not watch any alleged TV show. So, how are you going to prove your assertion? You're not. And since you have repeatedly made it, without proof, that shows you are irrational, not me.

What part of, 'it doesn't matter' is too much for your thick skull? Whereas your report is simply parroting, regardless of the source, mine is of my own mind. Granted it is informed of other sources, as is all higher education, but still it is I that has put more of himself into this topic.

When you lie about me and write crap, then I'll respond. Your ideas? Trust me, if you want to take credit for the manure you've been writing about, then feel free.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I saw the statement as erroneous drivel, which I corrected. Put it this way, do you have any proof to support your bull crap? No. Why? Because everything I wrote is perfectly consistent with a person who reads and who did not watch any alleged TV show. So, how are you going to prove your assertion? You're not. And since you have repeatedly made it, without proof, that shows you are irrational, not me.

What part of, 'it doesn't matter' is too much for your thick skull? Whereas your report is simply parroting, regardless of the source, mine is of my own mind. Granted it is informed of other sources, as is all higher education, but still it is I that has put more of himself into this topic.

When you lie about me and write crap, then I'll respond. Your ideas? Trust me, if you want to take credit for the manure you've been writing about, then feel free.
The shit is in your minds eye! So you think you can pick apart my assertion, then do so. Show me how much BS it is. I 'know' that you're incapable.