Shake

According to a story on ABC News Einstein's prediction that gravity forces move at the speed of light has been confirmed! This seems intuitive enough, but obviously required some proof.

Defiant Heretic

I apologize if someone's already said this. I haven't had time to read the entire thread.

The only way we can measure time is through our perception of it.

If all the matter in area 'a' was moving at twice the speed of the matter in area 'b', then from the perspective of someone in area 'b', the time in area 'a' is moving faster than normal. From the perspective of someone in area 'a', the time in area 'b' is moving slower than normal.

But time is moving at the same speed in both areas. It's matter that varies in speed, not time. (Kind of like the comparison between velocity and gravity in the theory of relativity.)

cfgauss

No, no, no, no, no, no, no!
Time has nothing to do with "perception"! It has no more to do with it than space does. It, like space, can change, but that doesn't make *it* dependant on perception!

When you say "time is moving at the same speed in both areas," that's not true. To use a term that's not really real, but makes intuitive sense, you have the same relative speed through time, but not actual speed. For example, if you're standing still in your yard, you have a speed of zero relative to your surroundings. If you're driving along the road at 35 mph, you have a velocity of zero relative to your surroundings (i.e., your car), yet you still absolutely are moving at a different speed than you were before! The thought that time *doesn't* change is perception, the actual "slowing" of time is very real and independent on perception.

shifterknob

But didn't Einstein assert that time was dependant on the observer? In other words, an observer gets on a rocket, leaves earth; traveling near the speed of light. It travels to, say Alpha Centauri and back. Wouldn't there be a difference in percieved and observed time between the observer in the rocket, and the observer still on earth? In other words, my understanding is that time flow depends on your velocity. And also, doesn't time break down near a singularity?
Or am I once again displaying my sheer ignorance?

Bob K

Shake:Space has no structure.

Structure implies, and requires, matter/energy, of some kind, perhaps a kind not currently observed and known.

Space is not comprised of matter/energy, and therefore has no structure, but, absent the PRESENCE of matter/energy, is an unlimited pure vacuum of infinite dimensions.

Matter/energy has gravity as one of its forms of energy. Matter/energy can therefore create a gravitational field which provides a structure-within-space, but, again, space, not being comprised of matter/energy, has no structure.

Gravitational field propagation is therefore a function of the presence of matter/energy.

Not that the curvature of light around large matter/energy stuffs is curved by the gravitational field, the energy in the gravitational field; light is not curved by space itself.

Defiant Heretic:The Operational Physics Theory of Time says that for time, T, the key concept is the time-interval, TI, which is the unit of measurement of time, often modeled after a naturally occurring periodic motion, a regularly, uniformly, reccurring motion, and which is arbitrarily selected but once set is independent of the original time-interval, and that there are two types of time-intervals: (A) Type 1 = Variable Time-Interval, or VTI; (B) Type 2 = Invariable Time-Interval, or ITI.

If time, which is defined as the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events by the use of time-intervals for units of time-measurement, is measured by ITIs, then time is everywhere the same, because of the nature of the ITIs, which are not affected by changes of velocity/gravity.

A simple gedankenexperiment (German: thought experiment, imagined thing/event) proves this to be true.

NOTE: When individuals set up a gedankenexperiment, they set up ‘givens’ which are their premises, and go from there. If you refuse to accept the premises, the ‘givens,’ then you will never understand the intuitive logic of the gedankenexperiment, and you will never learn, as did Einstein and others who have used gedankenexperiments (Einstein is said to have developed his theories primarily through gedankenexperiments, not lab experiments), the nature of physics, philosophy, psychology, or any other area of interest for which imagination is necessary.

Imagine a clock, an Invariable Time-Interval Clock, or ITIC, which is not affected by changes of velocity/gravity. No matter where it is located, on the Earth, inside the Sun, inside the event horizon/on the surface of a black hole, etc., and no matter what its velocity, from zero mps to 186,000 mps, or beyond, if ever possible, its time-interval, its TI, because it is an ITI, does not vary, and the face readings, the numerical designation of the counted and therefore measured ITIs, of the ITIC will always coincide exactly with sister ITICs everywhere and anywhere in the Universe.

NOITE: If you refuse the givens/premises by claiming that humans cannot possibly construct an ITIC using ITIs, then you are incapable of intuiting the results of this gedankenexperiment, this thought experiment, this imaginary set of things and events, this intuition, which requires imagining someone or something, even if not human, constructing an ITIC using ITIs, and determining, imagining, the results.

Thus, by this gedankenexperiment, and the concepts of the TI, the VTI, the ITI, the VTIC (Variable Time-Interval Clock), and the ITIC, we derive a fundamental fact of physics; time, T, when measured by ITIs in ITICs, is invariable, flows at a uniform rate, and is, therefore, universal time, absolute time.

The flow of time, T, must be uniform, so the motions of matter/energy stuffs will be steady, non-erratic; if the flow of time is not uniform, is instead erratic, then the motions of matter/energy stuffs will be erratic, non-uniform, jerky.

Remember always that physics is the study of changes of inertia, actually, the causes of changes of inertial states.

For motion to be erratic, energy must be applied intermittently. Whatever jerks is being jerked, therefore there is a cause of the jerking, and that cause must be energy of some kind. Thus, whenever jerky motion is observed, there has to be either energy present in the system or otherwise added to the system to cause the jerkiness, the jerky motion.

The flow of time is analogous to the flow of music. Music is a timed art; music is an event, a relationship among things, among conductors, musicians, singers, dancers, and audiences which occurs at a rate of time, a tempo, a pattern of duration in time. For music to flow uniformly if musicians are to play together, singers are to sing together, dancers are to dance together, and audiences are to ‘audience’ together, then the conductor must be steady, his beats per minute, his tempo, and therefore the tempo of the music, must be uniform, so the music flows uniformly, smoothly, and all musicians can play together the notes that are to be played together in the same musical measure, and all notes that are to be heard together by all ears at the same time are heard together by all ears at the same time; if the flow if time is erratic, that is analogous to music that is erratic in tempo, and musicians, singers, dancers, and audiences will not necessarily be at the same notes in the same measure together, and they might not even be on the same page together. Music thus requires an ITI, and the conductor must function as an ITIC; with a VTI, the conductor becomes a VTIC, the music becomes chaos, and the conductor and the musicians stand to lose their jobs.

The flow of time is also analogous to the flow of the frames of a motion picture. If the frames per minute projection of frames is steady, then the motions of the photographed people/things/events will be steady; if the frames per minute are unsteady, then the motions of the photographed people/things/events will be unsteady. If you speed up the frames per minute but you do not slow down in your perceptual equivalent of frames per minute perceptions, then time inside the resulting projected ‘motion picture’ will appear to speed up; if you slow down the frames per minute and you do not slow down in your perceptual equivalent of frames per minute perceptions, then , time will appear to slow down. The flow of motion in a motion picture requires an ITI and therefore an ITIC for the projector for the motion to be ‘normal,’ and therefore steady, uniform; if a VTI and therefore a VTIC is used, the projector will be unsteady and the flow of time and motion inside the resulting projected ‘motion picture’ will appear to unsteady, non-uniform.

Note that if the observer’s rate of perception varies precisely with the variance of the rate of projection of the frames per minute, then the motions of the photographed people/things/events will appear to be ‘normal,’ uniform.

But note the premise: both the observer and the projector must vary at precisely the same rate of variance for the perceived motions of the people/things/events ‘in’ the ‘motion picture’ to appear to move normally.

Since energy must be added to if not already present in a system to cause uniform disturbances of all conductors/musicians/singers/dancers/audiences/projectors/motion-picture viewers/etc., we would have to account for that energy, determine its cause, and, once the cause is determined, and accounted for, then we would still be able to ‘see’ or ‘hear’ or ‘touch’ and thus perceive the potential uniformity and therefore the ultimate uniformity or steadiness of the flow of time by removing, at least in our imagination, the energy which is causing the jerkiness, and, therefore, we can imagine the disappearance of the jerkiness, and the appearance of uniform universal/absolute time.

Motion-sensing clocks are realities, so I ‘m told by a friend who is a physics professor, therefore irregular motions can be detected, and the clocks can self-adjust for sensed changes of motion, and, thus, ITIs can be established by means of motion-sensing clocks, which thus become real-world ITICs.

Clocks can be synchronized by radio signals from a master clock, so I am told be the same physics professor friend, thus the net effect of ITIs can be created through synchronization of clocks.

Thus, universal time, absolute time, is now a reality, the tempo of the universe, and time is re-established to be independent of space and matter/energy.

When an observer observes an ITIC, actually, when he observes the face reading/numerical count of ITIs, the ITIs counted, he observes that face reading at the same timepoint, Ti (T = Time; i = identification number), as all other observers, because at Ti there is only one ITIC face reading possible for each and every and therefore all ITICs using the same TI, the same ITI, and therefore, for all observers.

This observation again proves the universality of time when T = ITIs = ITICs, when time, T, is measured using Invariable Time-Intervals, ITIs, in Invariable Time-Interval Clocks, ITICs.

cfgauss:When T = ITIs = ITICs, then time is everywhere and anywhere the same for all observers; when T = VTIs = VTICs, then time is more than likely not the same anywhere for any observers.

T = ITIs = ITICs means the flow of time, the tempo of the universe, is not affected by changes of velocity/gravity; T = VTIs = VTICs means the flow of time, which cannot be the tempo of the universe, is affected by changes of velocity/gravity, and the result is temporal chaos.

shifterknob:When T = ITIs = ITICs, then time is not dependent upon an observer, and all observers observe the same ITIC face readings/numerical count of counted ITIs at the same timepoint, Ti, therefore there will be no difference in face readings/measured time-intervals for sister clocks, sister ITICs, and no difference in time for all observers. The accelerated observer’s rate of growth/aging will change, but not the timeframe.

When T = VTIs = VTICs, then time is non-uniform and chaos results.

cfgauss

Bob, what you said didn't come close to making sense. I give >2:1 odds that you're a crank.

shifterknob:
It's a bit difficult to explain, and you're partly right. But to say it 'depends' on the observer is false (it depends on velocity). Time is an actual real thing, and moving does really, actually change it.

It doesn't depend on the observer. It's like what I said before, if you're driving along in a car, your friends in the car next to you are not moving with respect to you even though you're driving along at 35. If you're standing on the ground at the side of the road with your friends, they still aren't moving relative to you. Despite the fact that they weren't moving away from you in either case, there's still a difference, and it's not observer-dependant or anything.

It might help you to check out this explanation of why there's time dilation:
http://home.attbi.com/~cfgauss/relativity.htm
(Yes, I'm shamelessly plugging my own explanation)

eh

Bob K,

For the sake of clarity, and to avoid further misunderstandings, you should really try to go with the correct defintion of space. I know you think that the gravitational field (ie. spacetime) sits in some infinite vacuum, but such an empty vacuum is a very old definition of space. When having a discussion about physics, it is only going to be a source of confusion if you insist on using outdated terminology. When an article says that space expands, or is curved by mass, it is refering to the gravitational field.

Since the gravitational field is everywhere, the only place for your vacuum to exist is outside our universe. In such a case, it is irrelevant to any discussion about physics.

Bob K

eh:You have presented a definition of space thus:

Bob K:eh:I thus replied:I continued thus:I thus replied:I have presented a definition of ‘space’ in a dictionary of physics printed/published in the year 2000:

The Oxford Dictionary of Physics, Alan Isaacs, ed., Fourth Edition, 2000:

Space: 1. A property of the universe that enables physical phenomena to be extended into three mutually perpendicular directions. In Newtonian physics, space, time and matter are treated as quite separate entities. In Einsteinian physics, space and time are combined into a four-dimensional continuum [spacetime] and in the general theory of relativity matter is regarded as having an effect on space, causing it to curve. 2. Outer Space: The part of the universe that lies outside the earth’s atmosphere.

NOTE: The Oxford Dictionary of Physics is a 2000 year edition, not a circa 1900’s edition.

Definition: 1. A property of the universe that enables physical phenomena to be extended into three mutually perpendicular directions fits my definition because it accounts for the 3D reality of an infinite/unbounded/dimensionless area/arena/location/place/stage/theatre/volume/etc. which would be a vacuum except for the presence of matter/energy, and which, as a pure vacuum, has no structure, because structure can only be created/caused by matter/energy.

I have shown that Einstein created SR/GR using variable time-intervals, VTIs, and thus failed to account for invariable time-intervals, ITIs, and thus instituted mysticism in the form of ‘spacetime’ and other nonsense which must result from the use of VTIs instead of ITIs.

Reference: Relatvity: The Special and General Theory, Crown Publishers, New York, 1961, p. 99, translated by Robert Lawson:

“Clocks, for which the law of motion is of any kind, however irregular, serve for the definition of time.”

If you want to challenge someone’s theoretical thinking and conclusions then you must challenge his premises.

I have challenged Einstein’s premises.

If you see a flaw in someone’s premises that leads to erroneous conclusions, then you have a claim that his conclusions are false because of his erroneous premises.

Einstein used VTIs for his SR/GR theories.

That’s a fact.

What would his theories have concluded if he had used ITIs?

This is not an irrelevant question.

If you want to sniff it off, then you can provide your reasoning for so doing, but you nevertheless would not have answered it.

With ITIs we get back universal/absolute time, and absolute space, space and time being independent of each other, and proof that the concept of spacetime is irelevant.

Further, space has three dimensions, not four.

Time is not a physical dimension.

Time is a temporal dimension, which is why it must be defined and understood to be a separate reality from space/geometry and physics (matter/energy).

If you want to meet me for lunch in some diner in a space coordinate at a specific timepoint, Ti, you must list the space coordinates, which are only three, and then you must list the Ti, give it a specific number, and the only way that you and I will be able to meet at Ti is if we use clocks which use ITIs, meaning we must use invariable time-interval clocks, ITICs, and we can do so in one of two ways: (A) using motion-sensing/self-adjusting ITICs or (B) having our variable time-interval clocks, our VTICs, synchronized by radio signals from a master clock.

If we use VTICs with radio signal synchronization for the effect of using ITIs, as soon as you zip off to Alderon at warp speed to visit your girlfriend/boyfriend for a romantic encounter before heading for the diner for our lunch, and I proceed at less than warp speed to the diner, our VTICs would have been accelerated at different rates and thus would be out of synch, and you would show up late if you did not somehow adjust for the effects of velocity/gravity upon your VTIC.

Why is time not a geometrical dimension? Not a spatial dimension?

Spatial coordinates give us a location in space in three dimensions but time gives us only timepoints at which we have or we could observe people/things/events comprised of matter/energy in the three spatial dimensions.

When we take photographs with a conventional or digital camera, we get a two-dimensional representation, a picture, a photograph, of the people/things/events photographed.

We effectively have a frozen representation of a Now at the Ti in which we photographed the people/things/events in the specific area of space.

We would see an area of space that has three actual dimensions on the two-dimensional picture/photograph; we would not see people/things/events in 3D, instead, we would see people/things/events in 2D.

We could plot geometrical lines from people/things to people/things/events but because of the 2D reality of the photograph we could not account for the 3D reality of the people/things/events in the space we had photographed.

If we were able to coordinate the simultaneous photographing of people/things/events using at least six cameras aimed thus ...

1. North -> South;
2. South -> North;
3. East -> West;
4. West -> East;
5. Up -> Down;
6. Down -> Up,

... then would could get a better representation of the actual paths of the people/things present in the limited area we have photographed and, because events are relationships between/among people/things, then we would get a three-dimensional intuitive understanding of the motions of people/things in the events which are the relationships of the people/things to each other.

If we were able to time, using invariable time-intervals, using ITIs, for absolutely equal time-intervals, a series of six-camera photographs of a limited area of space, we would get a series of 2D photographs which we could set up in their proper orientations and these series of setups would eventually enable us to plot the actual 3D motions of the people/things in the photographs. We would be able to setup a 3D model of the people/things in their respective positions in each setup, and by observing the changes of their positions from setup to setup we would get an idea of their motion, where they were at T1, compared to where they were at T2, at T3, etc.

But our critics would complain that we are trying to use 2D photographs to observe a 3D spatial area/geometry.

Okay.

Then let’s do another thought experiment in which we create and use a 3D machine which operates kinda-sorta like a camera (A) which uses not light light but another, previously unobserved physical phenomena which produces instantaneous contact/touch with any and all people/things within its perception, no matter how big or small these people/things are, and with energy being represented by solid ‘smears’ which have structure [for the purpose of the 3D machine/camera], so we can determine the actual position of a smear of energy in each 3D model, and therefore eliminates temporal and gravitational effects problems which occur and must be accounted for when light is used, and (B) which uses invariable time-intervals, ITIs, to create a series of models of people/things in a limited spatial area. In short, the 3D ‘camera’ ‘photographs’ people/things in their geometrical three-dimensional positions in each spatial model, therefore each spatial model is a frozen Now, a frozen moment/instant of time.

We can move inside these 3D models to examine the precise positions of each person/thing, and by observing the changes of their positions from model to model we can derive their velocity and momentum.

When we do this 3D modeling of people/things/events, we have eliminated time as a spatial dimension, and we have relegated time to a sequential coordination of the events in which people/things change their positions from model to model, from moment to moment, from timepoint to timepoint, etc., which proves that time is not a spatial dimension, but, instead, proves that time is a temporal dimension, a dimension of sequences, of the occurences of events in sequences of events.

Time therefore tells us/enables us to measure and determine when, at what timepoint, at what Ti, this event happened, or another event will happen.

And when ITIs are used, then we can determine simultaneity, because if both Event A and Event B occurred at Ti, then Event A was simultaneous with event B, and we can determine nonsimultaneity, because if Event A occurred at Ti and Event B occurred at either Ti-1 or Ti+1, then Events A and B did not occur at the same Ti, and by the measurement of the Tis between the occurrrence of Event A and the occurrence of Event B we can determine not only When but How Much Time/How Much Temporal Difference between Event A and Event B.

Then, let’s use our 3D machine/camera to create 3D models of the entire universe, the entire unbounded/infinite spatial reality and all the matter/energy within it.

What do we have?

Each model is a 3d representation of frozen Nows in instants of time, at specific timepoints, each timepoint equidistant temporally, but not spatially, from the previous timepoint and the next timepoint, meaning Ti is equidistant in units of time measurement, in units of invariable time-intervals, in units of ITIs, from Ti-1 and Ti+1, and likewise for each Ti:

Ti-1 <-> Ti <-> Ti+1

NOTE: Each <-> is an ITI, and each ITI is identical in duration.

We now see in each 3D model of the universe the models of all people/things in their actual positions in 3D spatial reality, not their apparent positions.

We could thus measure straightline spatial/geometrical dimensions of the changes of position of each person/thing, and thus develop a complete understanding of the previous history of positions of each person/thing that would enable us to predict the future positions of each person/thing.

In each 3D model we would observe people/things in three-dimensional spatial coordinates with time eliminated.

From this thought experiment we gain an understanding of what is a Now, what is an instant of time, what is a Ti, when time-intervals, TIs, are measured using invariable time-intervals, ITIs.

Each and every Now at any Ti is a configuration of people/things in the spatial reality. Each person and each thing, no matter what it is and now matter how big or how small it is, including energy/gravity [as ‘smears’ having a temporary structure and therefore a specific position in the spatial reality], has a position in the 3D model at each Ti.

Does the past exist now?

No.

The configurations for all previous Tis have been and are now gone.

Does the future exist now?

No.

The configurations for all next Tis will soon be but have not arrived.

Can we travel into the past?

No, because to travel to a Now configuration at a previous Ti is impossible because ITICs would continue to measure ITIs into the future and thus we could not arrive at a previous Ti during a future Ti--the two Tis will not be the same.

Can we travel into the future?

No, because at this present Ti Now configuration we cannot travel to a future Ti Now configuration ahead of this present Ti Now configuration, because the Tis are not the same, and, therefore, the Nows cannot exist simultaneously.

Confusions arise when light is used to represent the past.

Lightwaves from the past carry information about people/things/events in the past but this information is not the actual people/things/events in the past.

If we could catch up to the lightwaves traveling from the Earth which carry information concerning Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg some people would say that we have traveled back into the past and have arrived at Lincon’s Gettysburg Address, but the fact is that we would not be observing the actual Lincoln and we would be observing only the electromagnetic phenomena known as lightwaves which bounced off and therefore from him as he gave the Address, thus where we would be observing lightwaves from Lincoln we would not be observing the real/actual Lincoln, and we could not interview him after the Address, etc.

Thus, lightwaves or any other matter/energy phenomena from previous Tis do not produce time travel backwards into time.

There exist no lightwaves or any other physical phenomena from the future, therefore there are no ‘things’ which can produce time travel forwards into the future.

Physics thus has not had an operational definition of time which requires ITIs for a unit of time measurement which provide equal measurements of timepoints which would produce a smooth/nonchaotic/nonjerky/etc. flow of time which is required for universal/absolute time.

Mr. Sammi

BOB K,

so you are using light to measure. Do you not think there is a problem here as I previously pointed out. How would light figure in the photo TOGETHER with an invariable instant?

There is a major discrepency here...

Will you be back?


Sammi Na Boodie ()

Bob K

Mr. Sammi:I am, in the thought experiment using the 3D modeling machine, using an imaginary media to create and measure the things/events which are modeled.By using thought experiments we can find out how things/events intuitively are and what things/events we would need to verify how things/events really are.

If we were limited to using 2D cameras to photograph people/things/events in Nows we nevertheless could synchronize them by (1) using invariable time-interval clocks or (2) by radio signals from a master clock.