Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Expanding time?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 46 of 143 (465483)
05-07-2008 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by john6zx
05-06-2008 11:29 PM


Re: Re-Expansion
In what way do you think time is real and exists?
In the same way length is real and exists.
Do you think time is a physical thing or a concept?
No. I'd wager it was closer to 'a structural quality of the [gravitational] field.' What exactly does that mean - I can't accurately report. I am not a physicist and I know how easy it is to get it wrong so I generally refrain from getting into that level of detail.
From what reference are you using to get your directions? East in reference to what for example. And what do you mean by SEE East and West?
North-South and East-West are just convenient analogous names for the possible directions in a two dimensional universe. I mean by 'see' that if you were to look at the world you inhabited everything would either be east or west of you. There would be nothing above or below you, noting north or south of you, at least that is how it would appear to you as a naive observer existing at 89 degrees latitude.
Our perception of it(time), What do you mean here?
Humans experience space and time in different ways. We can travel in both directions in space with some element of freedom, but our travel through time is more constrained in a specific direction.
Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. There is a distance, there is a velocity of the objects travel, and that movement of that object or particle in relationship to its starting point and in relationship to its ending point is what gives us the idea of time. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time.
Yes, that's all very nice. However, that doesn't give us any understanding about the hows and whys of time dilation. How can different observers be observing one thing but each seeing different things happening over different time periods with the same end result? How does one explain the twin paradox? How is it, if time isn't anything but a concept of relationships/perceptions of motion, how can this concept be seemingly altered and changed depending on whether the perceiver is either strongly or weakly affected by gravity?
That's the problem, if time is not an entity how can a non-entity warp or vary?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by john6zx, posted 05-06-2008 11:29 PM john6zx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by john6zx, posted 05-13-2008 12:51 AM Modulous has replied

  
john6zx
Member (Idle past 4821 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007


Message 47 of 143 (466077)
05-13-2008 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Modulous
05-07-2008 10:16 AM


Re: Re-Expansion
Thanks for the informative response.
Originally posted by john6zx
In what way do you think time is real and exists?
Modulous answer.
In the same way length is real and exists.
I know that objects are real physical things, but I thought length, width and such of that object are man made concepts. Man did not discover a physical thing existing on it's own and then labeled it length. Man gave measurement to objects. So I do not know if you are suggesting that time and length are physical things that exist or just man made concepts of measurement? From my next quote that you answered I see that you have some idea, but not quite sure. I also see that you were a bit wary about giving a wrong answer. Don’t worry about that, I am not concerned about if you can get it right according to what physicists say about time. I am more interested in what your idea of time is from what you have observed in the world around you. This is just a forum where people can freely discuss their ideas about physics and their experiences with it. So please feel free to say what is on your mind about this topic.
With that said, the reason I asked if time was a physical thing or a concept is because all of those things that we experience are either physical or conceptual. Our reality can be broken down to those real things that exist outside of our minds and those things that are real that exist in our mind. I see no other way in which something can be real to us. So when I apply that to the topic of time, I have to decide if it is a physical thing that can exist without being thought about, or is time a concept that we find real because we perceive the motion of objects and energy and get the idea of time. Do you see where I am coming from on this line of reasoning?
Originally posted by john6zx
Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. There is a distance, there is a velocity of the objects travel, and that movement of that object or particle in relationship to its starting point and in relationship to its ending point is what gives us the idea of time. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time.
Yes, that's all very nice. However, that doesn't give us any understanding about the hows and whys of time dilation. How can different observers be observing one thing but each seeing different things happening over different time periods with the same end result? How does one explain the twin paradox? How is it, if time isn't anything but a concept of relationships/perceptions of motion, how can this concept be seemingly altered and changed depending on whether the perceiver is either strongly or weakly affected by gravity?
That's the problem, if time is not an entity how can a non-entity warp or vary?
O.K. Lets look at this. In time dilation all of the measurements are done with clocks right?
So if you want to get to the basics of this phenomenon, lets take it apart and see what exactly is involved here. First, we have to decide if time is a physical thing. If time is a physical thing, then it would be made of some form of energy either free flowing, or energy condensed into matter. So from this point has time been established as something that is physical? Yes/No?
I say no, I have yet to see any evidence that time is a thing that exists as some form of energy.
But, Lets say that you seem to think that time is still a thing that exists as something out in the universe.
O.K. lets go with that. So in order to do an experiment on time dilation we (man) would need to make some device that can measure/detect this thing we will call time. Now you are going to say that man has made such a device, it is a clock. Right?
Alright, lets take a look at this device called a clock, any clock. There is a clock on your computer, is that clock detecting the passage of time, is time motivating the change in the numbers on that computer clock?
What about a wind up clock, is that purely motivated by the presence of this thing called time? Is a wind up clock a device that detects and measures some naturally occurring energy outside of itself?
What about an atomic clock, what does it measure? We are told that atomic clocks measure the motion of particular atoms and so many vibrations or oscillations of this atom has been determined by man to equal one second. So do atomic clocks measure a thing called time or motions of some object?
They measure motion. Which is converted to a number that represents a unit of time. Right?
In fact here is a good definition of what a clock is.
Every measurement of time is based on what man decided that measurement to mean. Seconds, minutes, hours and so on are all man made. Time did not come pre-packaged in these units, man agreed on what to call these durations. Clocks measure how much of a pre-determined man made unit passed for a given motion. If something takes a minute of time, then that activity lasted for what man determined to be a minute. Time is the concept of man.
Clocks are a man made device operating as man designed it, counting off man made increments that man gave a numeric significance to, that results in a man made concept called time. Clocks are designed to give numbers, to which man assigns a significance or importance to. A clock could be considered to be a device or machine that generates a number or numbers in a regulated manner that was pre-determined by man. A clock is akin to a regulated number generator that converts mechanical, electrical, or the motion of an object to a number through pre-determined engineering of the device, and these numbers are delivered at a rate that follows the set standards that man has agreed to be universal in all such machines.
So, before you decide that time dilation and all the other things involved with time are actual phenomenon, you would have to decide if time is a physical thing, and then do clocks actually measure this thing called time.
This of course is just my viewpoint on this whole time topic, that is why I am interested in what your idea of time is. I am not trying to invalidate any thing you have to say on this subject of time, just would like to discuss the topic and really tear it apart.
I am sure you are going to mention all of the tests that were done to prove time dilation, and I am totally willing to discuss this. I just ask that you refer to a particular test so we can talk about that specific test. You can pick any test you want, if you decide that it is necessary.
I know I just wrote a lot, but the basics are:
Is time a physical thing? If so in what way does it exist?
Do clocks actually detect the presence of this thing called time?
These two questions are the basis for all things that involve the topic of time.
Thank You.
John6zx.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Modulous, posted 05-07-2008 10:16 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by dawkinsisNOTGod, posted 06-11-2008 6:37 AM john6zx has not replied
 Message 50 by Modulous, posted 10-07-2008 6:41 AM john6zx has replied

  
dawkinsisNOTGod 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5769 days)
Posts: 33
From: Lashville, Tennessee
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 48 of 143 (470439)
06-11-2008 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by john6zx
05-13-2008 12:51 AM


Re: Re-Expansion
Time seems to have contracted whilst reading this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by john6zx, posted 05-13-2008 12:51 AM john6zx has not replied

  
Hiram 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5769 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 49 of 143 (470453)
06-11-2008 7:46 AM


Am I the only one who laughed when that guy mentioned length?

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 50 of 143 (485301)
10-07-2008 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by john6zx
05-13-2008 12:51 AM


Thanks for the informative response.
Apologies for the delay.
I know that objects are real physical things, but I thought length, width and such of that object are man made concepts.
Is the height, breadth, length and age of a tree unreal? Or are they real, but its only the units we choose to describe them in that are conceptual?
Man did not discover a physical thing existing on it's own and then labeled it length.
Right, and length is not a physical thing existing on its own. Yet it is a property that all things seem to have. It is one of at least three dimensions of an object.
So I do not know if you are suggesting that time and length are physical things that exist or just man made concepts of measurement?
I'm suggesting that these properties exist and that man has discovered ways to measure them. The measurements are arbitrary and convenient.
They measure motion. Which is converted to a number that represents a unit of time. Right?
They measure things which change predictably over a period of time. A rule measures the distance between two points in space, a clock measures the distance between two points in time. In simple terms.
I am sure you are going to mention all of the tests that were done to prove time dilation, and I am totally willing to discuss this. I just ask that you refer to a particular test so we can talk about that specific test. You can pick any test you want, if you decide that it is necessary.
Simple thought experiment. Take two batches of radioactive atoms. We empirically know that in any given batch, after 1 hour, half of the atoms will have undergone decay. Let's use a large number so that we can rule out statistical fluctuations. Let us say there are n molecules in each batch (a million, a billion, a godzillion whatever).
With batch 1, we leave them just sitting in their box. With batch 2 we speed them up to near the speed of light. We wait 1 hour. We measure batch 1 and learn that 50% of them have decayed. We measure batch 2 and learn that only 10% have decayed.
We stop batch 2 from their high speed jaunt. There are now 0.9n undecayed atoms. We'll say that 0.9n=m. If we now wait 1 hour and measure batch 1 we find that another 50% have decayed leaving n/4 undecayed atoms (only a quarter left since we've halved twice). We measure batch 2 and we find we have m/2 atoms left (ie since we last measured 50% have decayed).
That's a simple start, how can this be, unless time is a property that objects have that can be measured differently depending on the relative speed of the measurement device and the thing being measured (in this case the clock was travelling at 0 relative to batch 1).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by john6zx, posted 05-13-2008 12:51 AM john6zx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by john6zx, posted 10-30-2008 9:22 PM Modulous has replied

  
john6zx
Member (Idle past 4821 days)
Posts: 66
Joined: 01-27-2007


Message 51 of 143 (487392)
10-30-2008 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Modulous
10-07-2008 6:41 AM


Hi Modulous.
Alright, so I wanted to know in what way you thought time was real and existed. In your last response you said something to the effect that time is a property of objects.
We all know that objects are made of electrons, protrons, and neutrons. So where does time fit into this?
You say time is a property of objects, what do you mean exactly? Do you think time is a physical thing, an energy? What do you mean property? You say that time is real and exists, alright, so time exists in what form?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Modulous, posted 10-07-2008 6:41 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2008 12:17 AM john6zx has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 52 of 143 (487401)
10-31-2008 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by john6zx
10-30-2008 9:22 PM


We all know that objects are made of electrons, protrons, and neutrons. So where does time fit into this?
And you know that objects have a beginning and end in height (top to bottom), width (left to right), depth (out to in) and time (start to finish). That is where times fits into the properties of an object - in describing its dimensions.
Objects aren't made out of length, but combining atoms together can create atoms of x length. Those atoms will exist in that configuration for y amount of time, but time is not a constituent in the same way electrons are. Unless we are talking really fundamental physics.
Do you think time is a physical thing, an energy?
No. Not unless length is a physical thing, an energy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by john6zx, posted 10-30-2008 9:22 PM john6zx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by V-Bird, posted 10-31-2008 7:02 AM Modulous has not replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5585 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 53 of 143 (487410)
10-31-2008 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Modulous
10-31-2008 12:17 AM


to Modulus and John.
None of the dimensions are of themselves an energy, energy is a requirement for anything to exist within the dimensions and have what we call existence.
This is probably the only precise definition of existence possible in this cosmos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2008 12:17 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by johnfolton, posted 10-31-2008 2:04 PM V-Bird has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 54 of 143 (487446)
10-31-2008 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by V-Bird
10-31-2008 7:02 AM


Time a dimension a force not an energy?
Einstein said nothingness is not really nothing because energy exists in expanding space not diluting existing space but accelerating the expansion.
If time is a dimension based on nothingness a force(cashmir force)drawing energy thru the force nothingness generates because if its not an energy but a force being generated within the very fabric of spacetime continually its this force thats causing the curvature of the shrinking of spacetime in the present, that presses the earth forward in expanding spacetime, etc...
==================================================================
Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. Then one version of Einstein's gravity theory, the version that contains a cosmological constant, makes a second prediction: "empty space" can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence, more of this energy-of-space would appear. As a result, this form of energy would cause the Universe to expand faster and faster.
http://nasascience.nasa.gov/astrophysics/what-is-dark-energy
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by V-Bird, posted 10-31-2008 7:02 AM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by V-Bird, posted 10-31-2008 3:28 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5585 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 55 of 143 (487453)
10-31-2008 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by johnfolton
10-31-2008 2:04 PM


Re: Time a dimension a force not an energy?
Einstein was entirely correct to say that 'space' really isn't a nothingness, there is only nothingness outside of our cosmos in the void that is beyond it [what I call the greater universe] The cosmos is expanding into the Greater Universe [the void] and as such 'space' expands, the power for this is not the initial explosion of the big bang but rather the 'drawing into effect of the true vacuum beyond our cosmos expanding it.
The four forces are not exceptional to energy they are intrinsic to to it, energy has to have a behaviour or property of action, it is the four forces within all energy that dictate the behaviour of energy, and furthermore it is the four forces within one energy source that work on other energies.
Spacetime is shorthand for all this activity, it is shorthand for the phenomena of trillions upon trillions of points/sources of energy acting continuously on each other the result of which we see as vast expanse of our cosmos, the gaps between objects that have mass and appears empty is not, it is teeming with energies conveying information about what happens around these masses.
I believe that this is what Einstein was conveying to us all, it is the most remarkable insight which still to this day leaves me awestruck in its correctness.
To Einstein 'space' meant what I have outlined above, any properties he spoke of were not of the emptiness but of the teeming interaction out there.
Space cannot possess any energy except in the way I have outlined and Einstein tried to convey, energy can have attributes or properties and 'space is entirely filled with energy. Any attribute you have ever given to space should be more correctly attributed to energy either in the form of mass or EMR.
I hope this explains my thinking on this, please test me on this, it makes me rake over my past and test what I think I know. Steel sharpens steel.
Edited by V-Bird, : Speeling mustaks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by johnfolton, posted 10-31-2008 2:04 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 56 of 143 (490855)
12-09-2008 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
01-24-2008 4:06 PM


Can anyone answer this for me?
When space expands is there a reduction in anything?
Is there less of something when space expands?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2008 4:06 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by cavediver, posted 12-09-2008 5:05 AM jaywill has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 57 of 143 (490856)
12-09-2008 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by jaywill
12-09-2008 4:46 AM


When space expands is there a reduction in anything?
Not really - only anything that is a direct result of the expansion, such as density - e.g. the mass within a volume stays the same, so as the volume increases, the density must decrease.
Why do you ask?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by jaywill, posted 12-09-2008 4:46 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by jaywill, posted 12-10-2008 7:26 AM cavediver has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 58 of 143 (490946)
12-10-2008 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by cavediver
12-09-2008 5:05 AM


I ask because it is difficult for me to imagine the universe expanding unless as it expands it is taking up more and more space. In other words I conceptualize that beyond the ever moving boundary of the universe there is true nothingness of space being more and more encroached upon.
I cannot help but imagine pure space with nothing, being taken up by the expanding universe with its stars, galaxies, energy, masses, gases, atoms, etc.
It is difficult to imagine. Creating true space as it expands, is a strange concept.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by cavediver, posted 12-09-2008 5:05 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by V-Bird, posted 12-10-2008 8:17 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 60 by cavediver, posted 12-10-2008 8:50 AM jaywill has replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5585 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 59 of 143 (490954)
12-10-2008 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by jaywill
12-10-2008 7:26 AM


Your view is in my opinion the correct one, the cosmos does expand into a void, an endless nothing-ness.
The presence of nothing-ness is essential, the cosmos does not expand into 'something' to expand into as 'something' would have some 'properties' or 'attributes' that would show themselves in some way but do not.
The cosmos cannot create the void into which it expands as that is non-sensical.
You cannot create a true void as a true void simply is the state of non-existence!
So the cosmos is indeed expanding into the void of non-existence.
Edited by V-Bird, : missed a word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by jaywill, posted 12-10-2008 7:26 AM jaywill has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 60 of 143 (490957)
12-10-2008 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by jaywill
12-10-2008 7:26 AM


I ask because it is difficult for me to imagine the universe expanding unless as it expands it is taking up more and more space. In other words I conceptualize that beyond the ever moving boundary of the universe there is true nothingness of space being more and more encroached upon.
Yes, it is difficult to imagine - even V-Bird, who apparantly been considering these things for many years, has yet to grasp this concept. But the fact is (as in, what 99.999% of cosmologists accept) the Universe gets bigger but does not encroach on anything
You have to let go of your instinctive ideas about distance. They work well around you, even across the Earth - actually, they work quite well even around our local galaxies. But at the end of the day, the distance between two objects is merely a number. Just like the strength of an electromagnetic field is a number and can vary at a point without anything else having to 'move out of its way', so too can the numerical distance between two points vary, without anything else having to move out of the way!
The trick is to stop talking about the Universe expanding, and just think of the distances between things getting bigger. Imagine the Universe is infinite in extent (and it may well be) - how can it expand, it is already infinitely big? But you can easily double the distance between each two points within the Universe. So the distances grow, but the Universe itself is not expanding as such.
Why do we believe this? It is exactly what Einstein's General Theory of Relativity shows us. And this theory is one of the two most successful theories ever discovered! It has told us many crazy things, and so far they have all turned out to be correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by jaywill, posted 12-10-2008 7:26 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by V-Bird, posted 12-10-2008 11:59 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 62 by jaywill, posted 12-10-2008 3:36 PM cavediver has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024