tronvillain

Oh, and I am curious what your response to the last part of my post would be:

wdog:
tronvillain
Are we still disagreeing or what?

crocodile deathroll

The "present" is an illusion. I have just observed a plane flying across the sky with a vapor trail behind it. That is not the present in motion there, it's a plane. A photo snap shot of any position that plane is at from the south horizon the north are all equally real.
There is no physical evidence there is anything other than an object in motion and not time.
Time is just a fixed dimension.

tronvillain

I sort of lost you after the second sentence. What exactly do you mean by "an object in motion" if not "an object in position x at time one and in position y at time two"?

crocodile deathroll

I mean the "trajectory" of an object

Sidian

this is where you step in and remove 't' i'm guessing =)

the plane is moving at point x at speed 's' and moving at point y at speed 's'

speed 's' is relative to speed 't'. if speed 't' is known, we can determine speed 's' at both points x and y.
follow that?

you don't need the "per second" part of the equations for motion if you give motion it's own values. if we call speed 't' the rotational velocity of a second hand on a clock (meaning we compare it to a fixed point on the hand, say an inch from the fulcrum in the middle), then speed 's' will be determinable compared to speed 't'.

this is basically what we do with time anyway. i would guess the real problem with "removing t" is descriptions of frequency

anyway that's what removing t means to me. take it out of the equations and give motion it's own set of units. this eliminates apparent variances in time since motions always keep their properties and ratios, just at different percentages based on what speed their environment is traveling.


now, why do you think of time as "traveling" from past to present to future? lets say you rolled a marble next to a meter stick, would you ask which way the inches are traveling? i guess if you want to think that way, time is moving from the future to the past and we are stationary. dunno how that helps things tho.

i would sooner see time as a fixed system that we use/invented to place things that happen compared to how they have happened and to make predictions of what may happen.

someone respond to my earlier posts =(

Mr. Sammi

Boson,

I am sure you are not following my line of argument. It may be possible for space and time to exist independentely of our space time continuum, but currently both space and time are percieved within our existence and the description of these 2 phenomena have been encoded in the space time continuum as a description of our reality.

What I am looking at is what occurs across our universe which is representable as the space time continuum. The behaviour of what is may have depended on what was BUT examining what currently is does not depend on what was. To learn and grasp the true identity of the origins of what is we may have to get to the point of what was BUT it is not necessary to grasp what is through the looking glass of what was. What is = space time continuum. What was = how the space time continuum came into being.

All I am saying is what is currently in existence seems to have a degree of absolutism embeeded in the whole picture of what is extant. I am referring to the regularity of all around us and the simultaneity which exists all around us.

The article is facinating but it plays no part in the simultaneity we find in our world today.

Whether space and time is independent of mass and energy seems to be a question all wish to ask. Time may be independent of energy but in itz existence in our universe all energy has a time factor folded into itz existence.

I know we will be speaking further as I have hardly scratched the surface.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

tronvillain

crocodile deathtroll:

You mean the <a href="http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861721367" target="_blank">trajectory</a> of an object? Motion is describing a given trajectory over a given amount of time - a trajectory alone is not a complete description of motion.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

tronvillain

Sidian, you are still using time if you call speed t "the rotational velocity of a second hand on a clock." Trying to solve the problem by "giving motion its own set of units" is simply hiding your head in the sand.

crocodile deathroll

A more apt description would be the <a href="http://physics.about.com/library/dict/bldefworldline.htm" target="_blank">world line </a> of an object where all events in its history are all equally real.
The intuitional view of time reminds me a bit like a toddler's intuitional perception of objects that no longer exist when they have slipped out of view this is the toddler's knowledge of
<a href="http://www.funderstanding.com/piaget.cfm" target="_blank"> object permanence </a> after about the age of 2 it becomes obvious to the child that the object exists in three dimensions.
However the convention view still does not accommodate the existence of that object into 4 dimensions with its world line. A convention view that is false.

Gauge Boson

Thanks for clearing that up. Simultaneity is not in any way absolute. Two events which are simultaneous for one observer may not be so for another. Are you referring to the concept of an apparent 'present'? Also, while the universe looks "regular" (ordered? deterministic?) on macroscopic scales, on atomic scales and smaller, it is probabilistic. Could you please clarify what you mean by "regular"?

Had I better understood your post, I wouldn't have posted that article.

Well, (apparent) time is indeed inseperable from our observations of energy (and everything else). But it does not necessarily follow that all energy (which I surmise means massive and force-carrying particles in this context - a lot of energy does not exist physically, but it's still just as important) is fundamentally intertwined with time. Of course, from a positivist viewpoint, we can provisionally say that this is true, as well as say that spacetime is real, because these models currently yield the best predictions.

Well, let's get on with it, then. This should be enlightening.