Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-23-2017 10:58 AM
422 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,871 Year: 13,477/21,208 Month: 2,959/3,605 Week: 301/933 Day: 43/154 Hour: 15/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
9Next
Author Topic:   How is the Universe here?
Stile
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 46 of 131 (487277)
10-29-2008 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by New Cat's Eye
10-29-2008 9:46 AM


Re: Future and Past Ramblings
Catholic Scientist writes:

But what about things that haven't happened yet? They would still be in the future.

Yes, thanks. I was still getting confused between the difference and co-existance of "the future" and a "future light cone". I wrongly assumed that it was either one or the other, sort of a classical vs quantum type thing. It's not that the relative mind-set only has a "future light cone", it just also has one.

I think I'm better now, thanks to you and all the others for indulging my ramblings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-29-2008 9:46 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3427
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 47 of 131 (487291)
10-29-2008 3:23 PM


Reaming Time
Hopefully this won’t confuse things more but I want to expand on cavediver’s sheets of paper analogy. Cavediver has a ream of paper as his experience of spacetime. Each sheet represents a “now” in his existence. On each sheet are written all the things that happen “now.” Lower sheets record past now’s and upper sheets record future now’s.

I also have a ream of paper as my experience of spacetime with each sheet recording my now’s.

If cavediver and I are stationary relative to each other then both reams sit flat on the tabletop with each of our now’s in synch.

If we are moving relative to each other then our reams are slightly offset. What I see on my “now” sheet would span several of cavediver’s sheets. I would record in my “now” some events that will take place on cavediver’s future sheets and some on his past sheets. But I would see all these events as happening in my “now.”

Hope this helps.

-P


Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-29-2008 4:17 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11346
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 48 of 131 (487298)
10-29-2008 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by AZPaul3
10-29-2008 3:23 PM


Re: Reaming Time
What I see on my “now” sheet would span several of cavediver’s sheets.

Do you think it helps to think of this as your sheet being thicker than his?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by AZPaul3, posted 10-29-2008 3:23 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by cavediver, posted 10-29-2008 4:30 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1052 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 49 of 131 (487300)
10-29-2008 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by New Cat's Eye
10-29-2008 4:17 PM


Re: Reaming Time
Do you think it helps to think of this as your sheet being thicker than his?

No, not at all. What he means is that his sheets will cut across mine as they have a slightly different angle to the vertical. See my last diagram in Message 21 - the lines represent the sheets edge on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-29-2008 4:17 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
john6zx
Member (Idle past 2229 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007


Message 50 of 131 (487394)
10-30-2008 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by cavediver
10-26-2008 11:44 AM


Quote from cavediver

Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity introduces us to the concept of time as a dimension, very similar to our three spatial dimensions. (The clue to this was in Maxwell's Equations of electromagnetism, which could be written in exceptionally simple form once time was treated as the fourth member of the (x, y, z ) set.)

Just to be clear, YOU agree with this concept (emphasis on concept) that time is very similar to our three spatial dimensions?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by cavediver, posted 10-26-2008 11:44 AM cavediver has not yet responded

    
john6zx
Member (Idle past 2229 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007


Message 51 of 131 (487398)
10-30-2008 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by V-Bird
10-28-2008 6:32 PM


Re: Future and Past Ramblings
Qoute by V-Bird.

"If time is a dimension, should we be able to move through it like we can space?
Maybe cavediver can clarify, as I'm looking to understand in a practical sense what TIME being a dimension means.The explainations I've seen here would be no different than relating "time" to the speed of sound."

We do move through time but the movement is processional, time is a dimension that is a consequence of motion motion of anykind follows from the previous 'snapshot' moment of stasis.

Space is an adjective, it describes, it is not a noun for something that has substance, space is simply the gaps between things and the same applies to time, that is what a dimension is, you cannot manipulate dimensions, because dimensions are defined co-ordinates and that applies to time as well.

All four dimensions are merely measurements, they measurements in increments we have standardised so as to make sense of the Cosmos we are part of.

But both space and time are not in themselves 'things'.

I completely agree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by V-Bird, posted 10-28-2008 6:32 PM V-Bird has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Stile, posted 10-31-2008 10:23 AM john6zx has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 52 of 131 (487420)
10-31-2008 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by john6zx
10-30-2008 10:19 PM


Re: Future and Past Ramblings
john6zx writes:

cavediver writes:

Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity introduces us to the concept of time as a dimension, very similar to our three spatial dimensions. (The clue to this was in Maxwell's Equations of electromagnetism, which could be written in exceptionally simple form once time was treated as the fourth member of the (x, y, z ) set.)

Just to be clear, YOU agree with this concept (emphasis on concept) that time is very similar to our three spatial dimensions?

john6zx writes:

V-Bird writes:

All four dimensions are merely measurements, they measure in increments we have standardised so as to make sense of the Cosmos we are part of.

But both space and time are not in themselves 'things'.

I completely agree.

V-Bird and cavediver said the same thing. Why do you have a problem with what cavediver said, yet agree with what V-Bird said?

I don't understand. One says all 4 dimension are basically the same thing, the other says all 4 dimensions are very similar.

What's the difference?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by john6zx, posted 10-30-2008 10:19 PM john6zx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by john6zx, posted 11-03-2008 8:43 PM Stile has responded

    
john6zx
Member (Idle past 2229 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007


Message 53 of 131 (487713)
11-03-2008 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Stile
10-31-2008 10:23 AM


Re: Future and Past Ramblings
Stile.

It sounds as though cavediver is saying that time is a linear measurement of space, ie; length, width and height. Cavediver said in his statement that time was similar to these measurements. That is why I asked if he thought that time is very similar to spatial dimensions.

V-bird on the other hand said that time and dimensions are just measurements, and both space and time are not things. V-bird did not allude to the idea that time and dimensions are similar concepts or things. That is what I was agreeing with.

There is no physical scientific evidence that time, space, or dimensions are anything more than man made measurements.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Stile, posted 10-31-2008 10:23 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by cavediver, posted 11-04-2008 4:29 AM john6zx has responded
 Message 55 by Stile, posted 11-04-2008 8:08 AM john6zx has not yet responded
 Message 58 by onifre, posted 11-04-2008 8:44 AM john6zx has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1052 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 54 of 131 (487724)
11-04-2008 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by john6zx
11-03-2008 8:43 PM


Re: Future and Past Ramblings
There is no physical scientific evidence that time, space, or dimensions are anything more than man made measurements.

No, none at all, unles you consider the whole of the past 100 years of relativistic and quantum field physics :laugh: Anyway, it does seem that there have been some genuine questions regarding the role of dimensions, in amongst the bleating of the ignorant, so I will get around to addressing this topic.

As a hint to the readers, if anyone starts making proclamations that space and time aren't things and are just measurments, and that real things are energy, etc, etc, then you need to actually ask them what they mean by 'things', 'energy', 'measurement', 'dimensions', etc. The fact is that they are peddling words with zero understanding. And if anyone thinks that I am doing the same, then call me on it.

But sorry guys - will be back soon, I promise. It's VAT return time, I've put my back out, and I have my largest ever orders to deal with over the next few days. Aghh...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by john6zx, posted 11-03-2008 8:43 PM john6zx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by john6zx, posted 11-04-2008 9:10 PM cavediver has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 55 of 131 (487731)
11-04-2008 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by john6zx
11-03-2008 8:43 PM


Properties of the Universe
I'm really not the one to be arguing this sort of thing, but I think that both V-bird and cavediver are saying pretty much the same thing:

Space (spatial dimensions) and Time are both real things.

However, our human-measurements of those real things are man-made concepts and not necessarily perfectly accurate representations of those things. This would be because our information is imperfect, and our senses are limited.

I don't think cavediver's saying that time is a linear measurement of space. I think that cavediver's saying that time is a linear measurement of a property of our universe the same way that the spatial dimensions are linear measurements of properties of our universe.

Those 'properties of our universe' (or 'properties of things in our universe') are real things, and the measurements are human-concepts that are our best-method-available (right now) to try and describe those real properties of objects in this universe.

That's how I see it, anyway. But, really, I don't have the background knowledge required to argue what I think cavediver or V-bird is saying. I could very well be misinterpreting them myself. It's probably best that I bow out of this particular arguement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by john6zx, posted 11-03-2008 8:43 PM john6zx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by cavediver, posted 11-04-2008 8:26 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1052 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 56 of 131 (487733)
11-04-2008 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Stile
11-04-2008 8:08 AM


Re: Properties of the Universe
I think that both V-bird and cavediver are saying pretty much the same thing

god, I hope not :eek: V-bird is another loon who thinks that cosmological models are built from sciency-sounding words and layman sparks of 'inspiration'. If ever in doubt, just ask for a calculation based upon their ideas :) Say the spin-up rate of a pair of orbiting neutron stars and ask how it compares to the GR calculation based on their 'theoretical' emission of gravitational radiation...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Stile, posted 11-04-2008 8:08 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 57 of 131 (487734)
11-04-2008 8:40 AM


Hmmm.
I don't want this thread bogged down, it has the makings of a good one. IF there is to be any discussion regarding the differing viewpoints on existence of space and time then it would be best served in my opinion in another thread, although it has been discussed before I think.

CD sees space and time as having 'existence' in and of itself, I see space and time to be only the names for things like energy and mass and their interaction, we are not that far apart, and certainly not far enough apart for this thread to de-rail!

CD can talk about space and time and I will see it my way and he his, I will avoid posting at all costs unless I can show where the differing viewpoints bifurcate beyond the limit of stretch, if the mods think it necessary I will happily just post a link to a separate 'alternative viewpoint' to the CD thread.

I would like this thread to proceed without hindrance.

Thankyou.


  
onifre
Member (Idle past 359 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 58 of 131 (487735)
11-04-2008 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by john6zx
11-03-2008 8:43 PM


Re: Future and Past Ramblings
Hi john6zx,

V-bird on the other hand said that time and dimensions are just measurements, and both space and time are not things. V-bird did not allude to the idea that time and dimensions are similar concepts or things.

By this measure then would you consider gravity a thing, or the strong nuclear force a thing?

Are you saying that space is NOthing?


"All great truths begin as blasphemies"

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by john6zx, posted 11-03-2008 8:43 PM john6zx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by V-Bird, posted 11-04-2008 11:31 AM onifre has responded
 Message 76 by john6zx, posted 11-04-2008 9:25 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 2994 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 59 of 131 (487747)
11-04-2008 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by onifre
11-04-2008 8:44 AM


Re: Future and Past Ramblings
Onifire, both are attributes of energy, so yes, they are something that can be said to exist, they are part of the behaviour of energy.

I suppose it ultimately comes to this fundamental question,:- If you travel along with a quantum of energy, where is time?

The answer is that it is not there.

It is not there because time is not an attribute of energy and because time is not an attribute of energy, it can have no physical properties to manipulate.

This means that time cannot truly effect energy and energy cannot truly effect time.

Time ultimately is nothing more or less than an idea for us to use to make measurements, it's a great idea, but it is only an idea.

Being unable or reluctant to distinguish between an idea and a 'thing' is perhaps the division that marks me out most clearly from CD.

"Spacetime" is the measurement in relativity, the measurements are relative to the state of the observer making the measurement.

But!

This does not objectify space or time and turn either into an object.

They are useful ideas of measurement, but remain only ideas.

If we fail in distinguishing between 'idea' and 'thing' we can never develop a true insight into the cosmos,we relate to ideas all the time, but treat them as things, but this does not make them objects of reality.

Edited by V-Bird, : Speelig erers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by onifre, posted 11-04-2008 8:44 AM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-04-2008 12:31 PM V-Bird has responded
 Message 63 by onifre, posted 11-04-2008 1:54 PM V-Bird has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11346
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 60 of 131 (487748)
11-04-2008 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by V-Bird
11-04-2008 11:31 AM


Re: Future and Past Ramblings
Onifire, both are attributes of energy, so yes, they are something that can be said to exist, they are part of the behaviour of energy.
I suppose it ultimately comes to this fundamental question,:- If you travel along with a quantum of energy, where is time?

The answer is that it is not there.

It is not there because time is not an attribute of energy and because time is not an attribute of energy, it can have no physical properties to manipulate.

This means that time cannot truly effect energy and energy cannot truly effect time.

When I see the word "energy", the definition I'm used to is "the ability to do work".

What definition of "energy" are you using?

Spacetime" is the measurement in relativity, the measurements are relative to the state of the observer making the measurement.

But!

This does not objectify space or time and turn either into an object.

They are useful ideas of measurement, but remain only ideas.

That time can be dilated shows that it is more than just an idea, that it is, in fact, a "thing".

If we fail in distinguishing between 'idea' and 'thing' we can never develop a true insight into the cosmos,we relate to ideas all the time, but treat them as things, but this does not make them objects of reality.

Last time I checked, the people who realize that time is a thing are the ones who are developing a true insight into the cosmos.

Regarding time as an idea has gotten us what?


Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by V-Bird, posted 11-04-2008 11:31 AM V-Bird has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by V-Bird, posted 11-04-2008 12:56 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 78 by john6zx, posted 11-04-2008 9:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017