Is Time Absolute or Relative: Bob Enyart argues it's absolute...

[taoist]

Clete,


That made me chuckle! :chuckle:

taoist,
Too bad that clown smiley's already got a name.



Clete,
Okay, so now for a follow up question.

Assuming that you guys are right about it taking an infinite amount of energy to get from a particle of any size to the speed of light, how is it that you can do the reverse without an infinite amount of excess energy?

taoist,
Well, on the one hand, from a particle to the speed of light, we don't. We never do get particles up to the speed of light because we can't get enough energy pumped into them. But you can turn a particle into something that travels at the speed of light by avoiding the mass blowup. Just convert all the mass to energy. No mass means no mass blowup from relativity.

In the other direction, from the speed of light to a particle, photons don't have an infinite amount of energy. I think the ones we see because they're in our frequency range are only worth a couple eV. Cosmic rays go up to about 10^20 eV, according to a fast google, so if you put a few million of them together you can run your nightlight for an hour. Not very energetic individually, even the harshest photons.



Clete,
I'm not necessarily presenting this as a real problem or contradiction; I'm just displaying my ignorance here for the fun of it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

taoist,
There's a quote from one of the dudes who invented quantum mechanics, who said anybody who said they knew quantum mechanics was wrong, paraphrased of course.

None of us live in wildly different velocity frames, or gravitational potential fields, so we just can't develop intuition on it except by studying equations and drawing graphs.

I think they're fun, but hell, I'm a math dude.

Good night, Clete ... I'm sacking out.

 

[PureX]

It doesn't! But only because that problem rests solely with the clocks, NOT WITH TIME!

It's not a "problem". It's just a physical condition.

NO! The whole point of Bob's scenerio is that the clocks read differently because (according to Einstein) time had slowed down for one of them.

But time is just a word describing a rate of relational change in the physical realm. If there were no changes taking place within and between the physical objects in existence, there would be no "time". Ultimately, all that exists is energy being expressed in various ways (matter, space, gravity, motion, etc.), and energy is change. Time is the rate at which this energy/change is occurring.

What Einstein realized and pointed out to the rest of us was that this existential ocean of energy/change in which the universe exists is not uniform. There are places (conditions within it) where the energy/change is more intense than in others. And in those places (because of the conditions), all the manifestations of energy are effected: matter, space, gravity, motion, etc., and therefor, time. Therefor, if we were to compare the rate at which the manifestations of energy are interacting (changing) we would find that the rates of change vary from one place (set of conditions) to another place (set of conditions).

It is Bob who is suggesting the problem is with the clocks, not you Relativity guys!

It's not a "problem", and it's not in the clocks. The variations that the clocks are expressing are in the ocean of energy that we call the universe, itself.

 

[Clete]

PureX,

I don't have time to get into it in detail but whether you realize it or not, unless I severely misunderstand your post, you've just agreed with Bob and me on this issue. The only caviot might be that Bob's "absolute time" would be more correctly understood by saying that time "itself" does not exist. Either way, according to Bob, myself, and now you (and seemingly Johnny as well) the effect of gravity is only affecting the clocks not time itself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[taoist]

But with the same number of sunsets. That's the whole problem in a nutshell.

Clete!

Your boss just offered me a job! Ain't that great! But now I've gotta commute from Florida. So, lemme see, I guess that means I can catch the sunrise flight out of Miami and be at work by noon or so and get an hour in before I have to head back.

Yikes, I'm working the same job you are, at the same company even, but only a fraction of the hours! Oh, no! What am I gonna do? I've gotta talk to the boss, Clete, hang on for a minute.

...

Okay, it's all right now. He's agreed to pay me by the day. I'm sure you'll realize that's only fair. Sheesh, I thought I was gonna starve.

:chuckle:

As ever, Jesse

 

[PureX]

PureX,

I don't have time to get into it in detail but whether you realize it or not, unless I severely misunderstand your post, you've just agreed with Bob and me on this issue. The only caviot might be that Bob's "absolute time" would be more correctly understood by saying that time "itself" does not exist. Either way, according to Bob, myself, and now you (and seemingly Johnny as well) the effect of gravity is only affecting the clocks not time itself.

Actually, I was one of the first people to respond to Bob's original post, and I did agree with much of it. We forget that "time" is a concept that exists in the human mind as an intellectual reaction to how we experience reality. In a sense, time is not "real", it's only a way in which we conceptualize (quantify and qualify) reality as we experience it.

But this being said, gravity is effecting "time" even if time is only an idea. Gravity, matter, space, motion, time, and even our own consciousness of these are just different aspects of the integrated physical whole that we call reality. Whatever effects one aspect of the whole effects all of it. And reality is real. It exists apart from our idea of it.

 

[taoist]

The only caviat might be that Bob's "absolute time" would be more correctly understood by saying that time "itself" does not exist.

Hmm, Clete, there's a logical inference there.

 

[elohiym]

Hmm, Clete, there's a logical inference there.

Hmmmmmm. :think:

 

[Clete]

Hmm, Clete, there's a logical inference there.

What?

 

[SUTG]

The only caviot might be that Bob's "absolute time" would be more correctly understood by saying that time "itself" does not exist. Either way, according to Bob, myself, and now you (and seemingly Johnny as well) the effect of gravity is only affecting the clocks not time itself.

This seems like such odd phrasing: "The effect of gravity is only affecting the clocks, not time itself." What is the "time itself" that is not being effected? If you really think there is no such thing, then why do you keep sayin that it is not effected by gravity? So, if time itself does not exist, do you agree that time is relative and not absolute? What else could absolute time be but some version of "time itself"?

neither clock, in spite of the fact that one running slower than the other, ever leaves the others present. If the position of the clocks were such that a line of site could be maintians, observers at both clocks would never leave eachothers site and are therefore present with eachother at the same moment in time at all times.

Do you still agree with this earlier post of yours? It seems to contradict what you are now saying, or I am misunderstanding you.

 

[taoist]

If to understand absolute time it is necessary for time to not exist, then it is implied there is no such thing as absolute time ... and Bob's argument disappears as logically vacuous.

 

[Clete]

If to understand absolute time it is necessary for time to not exist, then it is implied there is no such thing as absolute time ... and Bob's argument disappears as logically vacuous.

I do not believe that it was Bob's intent to suggest that time "itself" actually exists, only that it is not effected in the way Relativity suggests. If it doesn't exist at all then one thing is certain, it does not fluctuate at all and what is being dilated in Relativity are the clocks but not time itself as though it were something real that could be manipulated.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

This seems like such odd phrasing: "The effect of gravity is only affecting the clocks, not time itself." What is the "time itself" that is not being effected? If you really think there is no such thing, then why do you keep sayin that it is not effected by gravity? So, if time itself does not exist, do you agree that time is relative and not absolute? What else could absolute time be but some version of "time itself"?

As I said a moment ago to Toaist in my last post, the nonexistent is quite constant, wouldn't you agree?

Do you still agree with this earlier post of yours? It seems to contradict what you are now saying, or I am misunderstanding you.

You must be misunderstanding me. Please explain where you see a contradiction and I will attempt to clarify my position.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[SUTG]

I do not believe that it was Bob's intent to suggest that time "itself" actually exists, only that it is not effected in the way Relativity suggests.

What is not effected? The phrase "time itself" is meaningless, unless by it you mean absolute time. If by "time itself" you mean absolute time, then Relativity shows that it does not exist. If you mean something else, explain what you mean.

If it doesn't exist at all then one thing is certain, it does not fluctuate at all

If it is not defined, then it does not mean anything to say it fluctuates or it does not fluctuate.

neither clock, in spite of the fact that one running slower than the other, ever leaves the others present. If the position of the clocks were such that a line of site could be maintians, observers at both clocks would never leave eachothers site and are therefore present with each other at the same moment in time at all times.

Which moment of time are you referring to in bold? In whose frame of reference?

 

[temple2006]

I am the most uninformed person here but this is extremely interesting to me. Is it possible to illustrate this concept to some degree by drawing at least two concentric circles around the sun (envisioning the circles as closed intervals) and drawing a straight line which intersects both circles and serves as a starting point and ending point. We will then assume that both circles travel at the same rate of speed...the outer circle has a diameter of say 1000 feet and the inner circle is only 10 feet across. Would the outer circle show a longer time to travel around the sun, considering they are in the same line of vision, then the small circle would orbit the sun in less time? Of course, we have an observer standing on each circle at the sp/ep (which are of course exactly the same point).

 

[temple2006]

Hey, where did everybody go?

 

[Johnny]

If time is, as you've said, "...the measurement of intervals.", how is the above quotation not a contradiction?

I said, "They measured the same interval and came up with different times." Because time is relative. So they can measure the same interval and come up with different times.

It almost seems that you and Bob are in virtual agreement in that the "interval" you've represented with the bracketed, equal length lines representing Bob's "absolute time". A person's perception of that interval may change in some predictable way but the actual interval itself remains constant. Would you agree with this, at all?

Not at all. It's not just the perception of the interval. The interval itself changes, depending on the inertial frame. You can't point to a single inertial frame and say "look, this is the way it really is", because no frame is priviledged.

I knew that might bring up a bit of confusion when I drew that out. It's more like this:

[------------------------] < Interval sun takes to cross the sky. I measured 12 hours. You measured 24. Same interval, different measurements. This is explained by experiencing time at a different rate.

I have a couple of questions I felt were important that I want to draw your attention to again before the post gets buried somewhere.

A) I'm not exactly sure where you're going with "clocks are affected by relativity and not time". As I've stated, there is no emperical difference as time is simply a measurement that clocks make. How does claiming that only clocks are affected by relativity make any sense when time has no meaning outside of an interval? What does making that statement say about the nature of absolute time, as Bob is talking about?

B) You said "Time doesn't exist and so cannot itself be measured." So would you say the same thing about length, width, and height? What about velocity or momentum? Do those not exist as well? They only exist in measurement.

C) What is happening when decay times dilate according to relativistic predictions at speeds near c?

 

[Johnny]

Would the outer circle show a longer time to travel around the sun, considering they are in the same line of vision, then the small circle would orbit the sun in less time? Of course, we have an observer standing on each circle at the sp/ep (which are of course exactly the same point).

Yes, if you assume they are travelling the same velocity. But this is because one must travel farther. Since t = d/v then increasing the distance (d) will increase the time (t).

But this isn't really analogous to relativistic time (unsure of whether it was meant to be).

 

[taoist]

I do not believe that it was Bob's intent to suggest that time "itself" actually exists, only that it is not effected in the way Relativity suggests. If it doesn't exist at all then one thing is certain, it does not fluctuate at all and what is being dilated in Relativity are the clocks but not time itself as though it were something real that could be manipulated.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Leaving aside everything but the logic, this is one of the two standard "degenerate" cases. The other is the case where all that exists is unified into one homogenous whole. It's pointless to argue the properties of degenerate cases, exactly because there is nothing to argue, no measure to differentiate.

My favorite example of the latter is the "degenerate ring" named R where 1 = 0. It's arithmetic is utterly sublime.

0 = x + y = x * y = 1 for all x and y in R.

An example of the former is the "degenerate ring" named R where R = Ø, the null set. Here the arithmetic is less than sublime, simply non-existent. There's nothing to add, subtract, multiply or divide (except by zero).

 

[temple2006]

Is Time Absolute

Is Time Absolute

Hi Johnnie, I thought about that but I got the idea because someone said that when you squeeze space you dilate time.....well the area of large circle is vastly larger than the area of the small circle. Not trying to prove anything, I do understand (as much as is possible) that gravitational fields affect time? Have a couple of other questions but I really hate to display how illiterate I am in these fields.

 

[taoist]

Greetings, temple,

Squeezing space is what gravitational wells do. So the closer you come to a massy object, like a planet, or a star, or a black hole, the more your personal space gets squeezed compared to somebody further away from a planet, or a star, or a black hole. And when your personal space gets squeezed, your personal time gets dilated.