crocodile deathroll

I have just been reading through carefully on the defintion of possiblism and I am now beginning to have second thoughts.
So I altered the illustration accordingly.

Bob K

If you define time as being the use of variable time-intervals, as found in clocks which are subject to the effects of changes of velocity and/or gravity and which are not motion-sensing and self-adjusting or otherwise not synchronized by radio signals from a master clock, for the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events, then time appears to be distorted by changes of velocity/gravity and therefore time an space appear to be interrelated and interdependent.

If, however, you recognize that there are two types of time-intervals, (1) the variable time-interval, and (2) the invariable time-interval, as found in clocks which are motion-sensing and self-adjusting or in clocks which are synchronized by radio signals from a master clock, then time is not distorted by changes of velocity/gravity and is therefore completely independent of space, and gravity.

Thus when invariable time-intervals, Type 2 time-intervals, are used for the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events, then the concept of spacetime becomes an a false concept.

Mr. Sammi

SOrry Bob K,

you are a little off.

With type 2 clocks which uses the st (spacetime) concept to adjust itself in line with speed and gravity, how in the name of physics, can you invalidate st after you have corrected your little drift using st.

* * *

In local universes, where time can run a little slower OR a bit faster, the master clock although valid, has no bearing in the localised field (local universe), except as a measure of extrinsic objectivity, except as a measure of connectivity between various local universes.

Having an invariable tick must necessarily imply a pure source of this tick which is impervious to all aspects of physical reality. It necessarily means this invariable tick is the source of physical reality, all transcends from this tick, OTHERWISE, the tick is only an abstraction of human consciousness...

SO Bob K, are you ready to support time particles, or time traces?


Sammi Na Boodie ()

Abacus

A motion-sensing clock? Motion with respect to what? And where would this master clock be located? And how would you synchronize any observers that may be riding along with the motion-sensing clock?

Bob K

Mr. Sammi:

Mr. Sammi:You don’t get it.

The Type 2 clock, which uses the invariable time-interval, ITI, does not use any concept of spacetime.

In fact, the concept of the invariable time-interval, actually, the theory of invariable time-intervals, invalidates the concept of spacetime.

In Operational Physics, OpPsych, time is defined as the use of time-intervals (as units of time-measurement) to measure the occurrences of events in sequences of events.

The time-interval, TI, can be, and is, arbitrary: you select any time-interval you want.

But once you have selected a time-interval, and have set a clock to use that TI, then that TI serves as the unit of measurement of time.

If you choose a clock that is motion-sensing and self-adjusting, or otherwise send radio signals from a master clock to synchronize all other related clocks, then you establish, from your point of origin, absolute/universal time, which is then used to measure any and all events you want to measure.

The keys herein are (A) the time-interval, Type 1, variable time-interval, VTI, vs. Type 2, invariable time-interval, ITI, and (B) the arbitrary selection of the time-interval itself, the unit of measurement, how long will be the duration of the time-interval, and (C) the point of origin, when you want to start the time-clock, TC.

Once you have (A) chosen between the Type 1 variable time-interval, VTI, and the Type 2 invariable time-interval, ITI, (B) chosen the specific duration of the TI, and have scheduled the point of origin, the Timepoint Zero, T0, the time begins.

Time can thus be measured from T0 either backwards or forwards:

Infinity <- Backwards <- T-2 <- T-1 <- T0 -> T+1 -> T+2 -> Forwards -> Infinity

If you choose a Type 1, or variable time-interval, or VTI, for what then becomes a Variable Time-Interval Clock, VTIC, then time will appear to vary when the VTIC encounters changes of velocity and/or gravity. Time will appear to flow unevenly, irregularly, not at a steady rate, not at a uniform rate. The effect would be the same as taking a series of pictures of a known steady evolution, revolution, motion, etc., at varying intervals and then playing back the resulting sequence at a steady rate of picture/frames per minute and ‘seeing’ what appears to be an unsteady evolution/revolution/motion/etc.

If you choose a Type 2, or invariable time-interval, or ITI, for what then becomes an Invariable Time-Interval Clock, ITIC, by the process of constructing a motion-sensing and self-adjusting clock, an ITIC, or by the process of sending radio signals from a master clock that synchronizes relevant similar clocks, to create, therefore, a network of ITCs all synchronized and functioning at the same rate, because of the invariable time-interval, the ITI, then time will not vary when the ITIC encounters, or the slave ITICs encounter, changes of velocity/gravity. The effect would be the same as taking a series of pictures of a known steady evolution, revolution, motion, etc., at unvarying intervals and then playing back the resulting sequence at a steady rate of picture/frames per minute and ‘seeing’ what appears to be, and is, a steady evolution/revolution/motion/etc.

Thus, when ITIs are used for ITICs, then time is invariable, unvarying, regardless of changes of velocity/gravity for the ITICs, time flows at a uniform, steady rate, and absolute/universal time is established, and spacetime is destroyed as a valid physical concept/principle.

I am not asking you if or not this is the truth; I am telling you this is the truth.

Do you agree that there are two types of time-intervals: (1) The variable time-interval, the VTI; (2) The invariable time-interval, the ITI?

Do you agree that with the use of VTIs in VTICs time appears to vary?

Do you agree that with the use of ITIs in ITICs time does not vary?

Do you really think that a VTIC, which uses a VTI, really defines time, really serves for the definition of time when it varies when it is subjected to changes of velocity/gravity?

Do you disagree that an ITIC, which uses an ITI, really defines time, universal/absolute time, when it does not vary when it is subjected to changes of velocity/gravity?

Hint: Absolute/universal time was defined by Newton to be the flow of time at a uniform/steady rate.

Does a VTI in a VTIC cause time to flow at a steady/uniform rate?

Or does an ITI in an ITIC cause time to flow at a steady/uniform rate?

Hint: Uniform/steady flow/rate of time-measurement requires an ITI in an ITIC.

Do not evade these questions.

Focus upon the concept of the time-interval, the difference between a variable time-interval and an invariable time-interval, and the concept of an arbitrary point of origin from which time can be measured.

Mr. Sammi:Mr. Sammi:I support the differentiation of time-intervals into variable and invariable time-intervals.

I have never heard of the concepts and principles of time particles or time traces.

Time is defined as the use of time-intervals for the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events.

The time-interval can be arbitrarily chosen, but once chosen becomes a standard unit of measurement, variable, unfortunately, in the case of clocks which are not compensated for changes of velocity/gravity, but invariable in the case of clocks which are compensated for changes of velocity/gravity.

Once a time-interval has been chosen, time can be measured from an arbitrary starting point, Timepoint Zero, T0, backwards or forwards, as shown above.

An invariable time-interval can be created by either motion-sensing and self-adjusting timepieces or when timepieces are synchronized by radio signals from a master clock which is not subjected to changes of velocity/gravity.

shifterknob

So how would you, in practical terms, have a real clock that isn't affected by velocity or gravity?
Or is this just an intellectual construct?
My understanding of time, which I admit is probably sorely lacking, is that time is contextual, i.e. that it is dependant on the observer, and his frame of reference. An observer at close to the speed of light is approaching infinite mass, and finds time has slowed down in relation to the observer back on the planet he originally departed from. Einstein's theory of relativity, in other words.
Likewise, time to an observer inside the event horizen of a black hole is moving quite slowly in reference to the observer orbiting the black hole at a safe distance. So mass does influence time, as it is percieved by the observer, because gravity is related to mass.
That is my limited understanding of the relationship, and if I'm wrong, I'm sure I'll have my head handed to me on a platter. But my understanding has always been that gravity
does affect time, and that effect is dependant on frame of reference...

Corona688

Intellectual. An object in a gravitational field feels no forces, and neither does an object in constant straight-line motion; another observer is needed to see these.

And that's relativity in a nutshell, in fact!

HeatherD

I did a Google search on the phrase invariable time interval and your page is the only one I found. I find that odd.

AFAIK, there is no such thing as an invariable time interval. The time period known as a second is based on a precise number of oscillations of the Cesium 133 atom. It has been experimentally shown time and again that any time period is affected by acceleration, be it propulsive or gravitational. The number of oscillations are exactly the same but the actual time period is affected by the acceleration.

It might be possible to create a self-compensating time device but the exact nature of such a device is beyond me. It might use an agreed upon standard like a pulsar which has a precise pulse period.

The need for such a device though escapes me. Regardless of the time relative to your point of origin, say Earth, your time will appear to be normal relative to yourself. Since it's a simple matter to determine your own acceleration rate, it's also a simple matter to calculate the relative time period at your point of origin.

Bob K

Corona688

shifterknob:Corona688:Is it possible that machines/organisms can sense/feel changes of the density of gravity?

Would not changes of gravity produce changes of inertial mass and therefore changes of motion as acceleration or deceleration that could be sensed by motion-sensing machines?

Let’s do a gedankenexperiment, a thought experiment.

Light has two properties that might help us develop a motion-sensing inertial guidance system:

1. The speed of light is independent of the speed of its source.
2. The frequency of light is dependent on the speed of its source because of the Doppler Effect.

Let’s install a light source inside a sphere.

Let’s aim lightrays/waves to strike targets on the inside of the sphere. Each lightray has its unique target.

Let’s use an invariable time-interval for the clocks built into this machine to ensure that time is measured in a uniform flow, at a uniform rate of measurement.

If the machine is not moving, all lightrays should strike their targets at predicted/expected timepoints and with the same frequency.

When the machine is moving, and in a straight line, and, therefore, in two dimensions, lightrays aimed forwards will strike their targets after the predicted/expected timepoints and with blueshifted frequencies, and lightrays aimed backwards will strike their targets before their predicted/expected timepoints and with redshifted frequencies.

When the machine is accelerated/decelerated and therefore its velocity changed, then the arrival timepoints of lightrays can be compared to predicted/expected timepoints to determine not only if or not there has been a change of motion but what is the amount and direction of that change of motion.

When the machine is rotating, and accelerating/decelerating, lightrays will strike different targets and different timepoints and with varying frequencies, all of which produce information we could use for determining changes of motion and direction in three dimensions.

This marvelous machine would be an ultimate inertial guidance system, capable of determining not only if or not a spaceship/submarine/etc. is moving or not moving but if moving how fast it is moving and what are the measurements of the amounts of changes of its direction and velocity.

It would give us absolute motion and absolute rest.

It would detect absolute motion by differences between predicted and actual arrival times of lightrays and by differences of frequencies of the lightrays, by blueshifts and redshifts.

It would detect absolute rest, the K reference frame, by zero differences between predicted and actual arrival times of lightrays, and by no differences in frequencies, by no blueshifts or redshifts.

This light source inertial guidance system would thus be its own observer of its motion/inertia and changes of its motion/inertia.

This machine would not be possible nor practical if not for the use of invariable time-intervals, because variable time-intervals would distort the readings of the emission times/timepoints and arrival times/timepoints.

I do not know if or not this idea for an inertial guidance system must remain an idea or if it could be made into an actual machine.

But, at least in this gedankenexperiment, the machine only works when invariable time-intervals are used.

Bob K

HeatherD:

Bob K:Heather D:When you challenge someone’s theories/assertions you challenge their assumptions, their premises, their thinking, and I found that A. Einstein developed his theories using clocks with variable time-intervals, intervals which vary with changes of velocity/gravity, which lead to his conclusion that time and space are interdependent, and not independent, and, therefore, absolute space and absolute time did not exist, as Newton said they did.

I wondered what would happen if invariable time-intervals were used, which could be produced by the use of (A) motion-sensing/self-adjusting clocks or (B) clocks synchronized by radio signals from a master clock, and found that the result was time counted uniformly and therefore ‘flowing’ uniformly, independent of space, and conforming to the requirement for universal/absolute time, which requires time to be measured as flowing uniformly, which can only happen when invariable time-intervals are used.

This lead me to a deeper conception of the true nature of time: Time is the use of time-intervals to measure the occurrences of events in sequences of events.

If you think time is distorted merely because clocks which measure time are distorted by changes of velocity/gravity then you do not understand, or do not accept, the definition of time to be the use of time-intervals for the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events.

By this definition, chaos results when variable time-intervals are used, with the result that time does not appear to flow uniformly, and is subject to distortion caused by changes of velocity/gravity.

But by this definition, order results when invariable time-intervals are used, for the result is that time is not distorted by changes of velocity/gravity and therefore flows uniformly, and satisfies the requirement for the uniform measurement of time, which produces the awareness of the uniform flow of time which is universal/absolute time, time the same everywhere in the universe, and time independent of space and other physical phenomena.

When you perceive what is the true nature of time, that it is independent of machines which are used to measure time, then you understand that it is one of the infinities of the universe, along with the unbounded dimensional infinity of space, and the infinity of the duration of matter/energy, along with the finity of the quantity of matter/energy.

A. Einstein, on page 99 of his book, Relativity: The Special and General Theories, stated that mechanical clocks serve for the definition of time. Since mechanical clocks are subject to variations of time measurement due to changes of velocity/gravity, Einstein thereby admitted that he used variable time-intervals for developing his theories of relativity. For him, time could be diluted. distorted, by changes of velocity/gravity, and, to my knowledge, he never considered what time would be if he had used invariable time-intervals.

To my knowledge, no one else has considered if or not there are variable vs. invariable time-intervals, hence I am not surprised that mine is the only website on the internet with any mention of variable vs. invariable time-intervals.

Whether or not invariable time-intervals can be developed and used effectively in reality, by intuition, at least, we now know they exist and what they are, and that they give us a true understanding of the infinity of time, of time-measurement.

The infinity of time gives us an understanding of what is the infinite duration in time of space and matter/energy. The infinity of time only works with invariable time-intervals, which produce the uniformity of time we need for the uniform measurement of time backwards or forwards ...


Infinity <- Backwards <- T-2 <- T-1 <- T0 -> T+1 -> T+2 -> Forwards -> Infinity

... otherwise, with variable time-intervals, the uniformity of the measurement of time is not possible and we lose our sense of the infinity of time.

NOTE: <- and -> are symbols for the time-interval used to measure time from T0. If these intervals are not uniform, then one person’s T+1 or T-1 will not be the same as someone else’s T+1 or T-1, and where we could establish simultaneity by invariable time-intervals by asking observers to tell us what happened at a specific timepoint, now made uniform for all observers by the use of invariable time-intervals, when we get confirmations that Ralph over Here observed Event X at Timepoint T+1 and Elaine over There observed Event Y at Timepoint T+1 that we can conclude that Events X and Y both happened at Timepoint T+1, and, therefore, both X and Y happened simultaneously.

Universal/Absolute Time could be useful for determining not only simultaneity, and before/after, in physics, but also, ultimately, determinism and predictability in physics, at any and all levels of physics, including QM.

One of the myths of physics is that time can be distorted. Time using variable time-intervals can appear to be distorted, but time using invariable time-intervals can never be distorted.

One of the myths of physics is that time and space are interdependent, as per the concept of spacetime, which was developed using variable time-intervals, as admitted by Einstein when he said that mechanical clocks serve for the definition of time. Time using invariable time-intervals proves time cannot be dependent upon space, that time is therefore independent of space, and, hence, the concept of spacetime, developed using only variable time-intervals, is a false concept when invariable time-intervals are used.

This new conception of time ought to be useful in reworking theories of physics.

It ought to be useful in inventing machines, such as using a light source and invariable time-intervals for a light-based inertial guidance system that could detect only changes of motions but motion and rest. [See my Reply to Corona688 for the thought experiment in which a light-based inertial guidance system is described.]