|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4172 days) Posts: 67 From: Traverse City, MI usa Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Time, a brief history | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18343 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
brokenpride writes: Yes. It is a theory. But do we have evidence for this theory? Space-time was thought-up to make equations work.brokenpride writes: How do you mean? And, with all due respect, why are you challenging the assumptions of traditional cosmological science in a non-scientific, speculative manner? However, I am simply saying that matter affects matter in observation.Brokenpride writes: There is no definite answer, as there is in religion. As a Christian, I question my belief, but I also know that there is no definite answer that my mind can comprehend...my God is real, yet I cannot provide a mathimatical formula for Him. Lets get back to the science side of all this, however. If you want to explain the universe with mathamatics, it doesn't take long to realize that some things don't add up.What do you base your observations of cosmology on? Math? Science? How can we define the terms we use? (I am excluding religion in this topic) Brokenpride writes: What is the truth of matter? Lets discuss matter for a moment. I am simply saying that change does not come from no change when it comes to matter. How can I say this?; we have never seen any evidence to think otherwise. That is not that mind-boggling to comprehend. It is you who have no comprehension of the universe you live in. It is believing the truth of the matter, or shall I say truth of matter, that makes it so simple. What is matter?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Space-time was thought-up to make equations work.
Not quite correct. The equations work anyway. The concept of space-time was invented to help better understand the implications of the equations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinamatic Member (Idle past 4172 days) Posts: 67 From: Traverse City, MI usa Joined: |
Yes. It is a theory. But do we have evidence for this theory?
There is good evidence but it is highly theoretical.
How do you mean? And, with all due respect, why are you challenging the assumptions of traditional cosmological science in a non-scientific, speculative manner?
What I present does not necessarily contradict traditional cosmological science. When people talk of space-time most describe it as having fabric like properties. When something with high mass is present it acts like a bowling ball on a bed spread. What is this fabric though? -Just as unscientific and speculative as what I say- My original statement does not really contradict the popular opinion as to the science and math that can be observed. It does however contradict the idea of an infinate universe or better said; infinate change
What do you base your observations of cosmology on? Math? Science? How can we define the terms we use? (I am excluding religion in this topic)
I am basing my observations on change in general, such as the proven fact that the universe appears to be expanding etc. I view math as a man made idea that corresponds to universal phenomenon, and change.I view science as the practice of proving that these phenomenon's exist and using those phenomenons to make our lives better and to better understand them. What is the truth of matter? Lets discuss matter for a moment. What is matter? brokenpride writes: Yes. It is a theory. But do we have evidence for this theory? Space-time was thought-up to make equations work.brokenpride writes: How do you mean? And, with all due respect, why are you challenging the assumptions of traditional cosmological science in a non-scientific, speculative manner? However, I am simply saying that matter affects matter in observation.Brokenpride writes: There is no definite answer, as there is in religion. As a Christian, I question my belief, but I also know that there is no definite answer that my mind can comprehend...my God is real, yet I cannot provide a mathimatical formula for Him. Lets get back to the science side of all this, however. If you want to explain the universe with mathamatics, it doesn't take long to realize that some things don't add up.What do you base your observations of cosmology on? Math? Science? How can we define the terms we use? (I am excluding religion in this topic) Brokenpride writes:
[qs]What is the truth of matter? Lets discuss matter for a moment. I am simply saying that change does not come from no change when it comes to matter. How can I say this?; we have never seen any evidence to think otherwise. That is not that mind-boggling to comprehend. It is you who have no comprehension of the universe you live in. It is believing the truth of the matter, or shall I say truth of matter, that makes it so simple. What is matter? [qs] I cannot give the best explanation of matter but I can tell you what I meant by the word- Anything that moves or changes. I am aware of concepts like anti-matter and such but I used the word matter because of lack of a better word. I am basing all of my ideas on the notion that there is truth in all things. Some people accept some truths and deny other truths. For example some people can conceive of an infinate amount of points between these two arrows >-----------------------------------------< However, I can cross those infinate amount of points with my finger. Is there a smallest common denominator that one must use when measuring distance? If so, then does movement jump from one cordinate to the next? How can we explain movement itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinamatic Member (Idle past 4172 days) Posts: 67 From: Traverse City, MI usa Joined: |
lol sorry for all the confusion in my last post. If you can sift through it you probably have better concentration than I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Brokenpride
Space and time are two totally different things. The reason many call this idea space-time, is because they cannot explain it. You can measure the distance between two moving forms of matter. That is space. Measuring how long that matter took to reach that distance is time. Different but indeed relative. With what do you measure space Brokenpride? With what do you measure time? In measuring space we can only do so by reference to a fixed location.In measuring time we can only do so by reference to a fixed location as well.We measure time by the movement through space of a device designed to maintain a regular sequence to which we can refer and thus assign a meaning to the passage of events. Eliminate time and what physical meaning can you give to the measure of space? Eliminate space and what physical meaning can you give to time? They are joined at the hip in the deepest meaning of the phrase. As a check up on your understanding of measurement let us conduct a thought experiment that Albert Einstein used to forge his arguements. Imagine yourself on a train moving at a constant velocity past a railway crossing. You open a window and take rock and drop it from the train. Now, ignoring air resistance, on the train you observe the rock to follow a straight line path to the ground.On the ground outside the train a person watches you perform this misdeed and observes the rock to follow a curved path {Parabola} to the same point on the ground. The question to ponder is this. Which path is the correct one? A straight line or a curved one? Since both are observed to have occured how can we reconcile the fact that a curved path is a greater length that a straight line path if both paths began at the same location and ended an a different location but the same point on the ground in both cases?Get back to me when you think you have it figured out. This message has been edited by sidelined, Fri, 2006-03-24 12:24 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinamatic Member (Idle past 4172 days) Posts: 67 From: Traverse City, MI usa Joined: |
I would say that the perspective of the man on the train sees the rock traveling straight because he is only able to observe the one dimension of up-down. The man off the train observes it 2 dimensional up-down and left-right. When something is dropped it accelerates and that is what causes the curve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinamatic Member (Idle past 4172 days) Posts: 67 From: Traverse City, MI usa Joined: |
the curved one is more correct because it has more data
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinamatic Member (Idle past 4172 days) Posts: 67 From: Traverse City, MI usa Joined: |
With what do you measure space Brokenpride? With what do you measure time?
I suppose that most equations in cosmology are measured using light as a constant velocity.It seems space is most often measured with light. It's a good thing light never changes speed ay? Time is a measurement of change as I interpret it. I find it ironic that you have to be living to observe it. We study years before we were born and predict years in the future and we are the only ones who can observe it, aside from God of course. The universe doesn't know it exists haha. It just reacts. Those creepy aliens might know a thing or two as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Brokenpride
I would say that the perspective of the man on the train sees the rock traveling straight because he is only able to observe the one dimension of up-down Why do you say that? Please explain what prevents him from seing motion in any dimension. If the rock were to move forward or backward or in towards the interior of the car he is quite capable of observing this.The path taken is a straight line relative to the train. The man off the train observes it 2 dimensional up-down and left-right. When something is dropped it accelerates and that is what causes the curve. When something drops gravity accelerates it downward. The constant motion of the train relative to the ground is what imparts an acceleration forward. However neither of these arguements answers the central question of which path is "real". Since the starting points and end points are the same for both paths how can the path be different lengths {a curve between 2 points requires a greater length than a straight line} ? Now to make the situation even more baffling if we reverse the situation and have the man on the ground drop the rock while the man on the train goes by the man on the ground watches it travel a straight line while the man on the train sees it follow a curved path.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sinamatic Member (Idle past 4172 days) Posts: 67 From: Traverse City, MI usa Joined: |
That is a interesting question but easily explained. Velocity, is a known factor in measurement. If you take velocity out of the equation, they are both the same. For instance, if two men are on different trains running parallel at the same velocity they would both observe the same thing. The man on the train that you describe could realize the truth if he could measure the acceleration of the rock and then compute it's position in a certain range of time. The trouble lies in computing very small measurements of time. What is the smallest amount of time? What is the smallest amount of distance?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Posit Inactive Member |
sidelined writes: Imagine yourself on a train moving at a constant velocity past a railway crossing. You open a window and take rock and drop it from the train. Now, ignoring air resistance, on the train you observe the rock to follow a straight line path to the ground.On the ground outside the train a person watches you perform this misdeed and observes the rock to follow a curved path {Parabola} to the same point on the ground. I've never heard this one before. Odd that Einstein would use it, since it's explainable with introductory Newtonian mechanics. Now if the train were moving at a hair under the speed of light, and a guy on the caboose shined a flashlight backwards, would the stationary observer see a very slowly moving beam of light? That is a more Einsteinian thought experiment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18343 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
You can edit it if you want. Just push the EDIT button. Or I can fix it for you...(maybe!)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4705 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
the fact that he says he does not change. Would you document this fact, please. What do you mean by "he says". You heard a voice? lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Posit
I've never heard this one before. Odd that Einstein would use it, since it's explainable with introductory Newtonian mechanics. The example I used is an accurate {though paraphrased } desription of one found in the book RELATIVITY {The Special and General Theory} published by Thre River Press New York He was making the case that " there is no such thing as an independently existing trajectory but only a trajectory relative to a particular body of reference". He was dealing with classical mechanics as pertains to space and time and was laying the groundwork for showing the steps by which he would argue his position for the validity of special relativity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5935 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Brokenpride
If you take velocity out of the equation, they are both the same. Of course it would. This is because they now both have the same reference frame.{the ground} However, we are trying to find out why there should be a different path for the same starting and ending points between the train moving at a constant velocity and a person on the ground.
For instance, if two men are on different trains running parallel at the same velocity they would both observe the same thing. Of course they would because they now share an equivalent frame of reference.They would also make the observation that neither train is movingrelative to the other.Therefore it is logically consistent that the paths they would observe for the rocks would be the same.
The man on the train that you describe could realize the truth if he could measure the acceleration of the rock and then compute it's position in a certain range of time. Actualy you mean say measure the velocity {since velocity change over a range of time reveals its acceleration.} Regardless, you now see by this statement of yours the inseperabilty of spacetime in describing an event.This is direct contradiction of your earlier statement{Post # 23} that space and time are different.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024