Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Belated Time travel .. ?


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#18 EWright

EWright

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 667 posts

Posted 28 December 2007 - 12:30 AM

Really? Am I chopped liver here? Did you even read my responses? :shrug: Sigh...

#19 snoopy

snoopy

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 261 posts

Posted 28 December 2007 - 12:34 AM

I think that 'in the beginning' there had to be a fundamental substance. I think of it as Matter. Matter in motion can be measured as Energy. We have no satisfactory definition of Matter yet, nor Mass.

cool bananas ... Drum ;)



Matter is condensed energy given by the equation

[math] E= mc^2[/math]

so whether the matter is in motion or not is irrelevant.

We have no satisfactory explanation as yet of mass but think it has something to do with bosons or more precisely the 'Higgs Boson'

Peace
:)

#20 Drum

Drum

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 28 December 2007 - 01:01 AM

Really? Am I chopped liver here? Did you even read my responses? :shrug: Sigh...


I'm sorry mate... I'm new here and there were so many to reply to.

Have re-read it and will respond soon.

cool bananas ... Drum

#21 Drum

Drum

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 28 December 2007 - 01:06 AM

Matter is condensed energy given by the equation

[math] E= mc^2[/math]

so whether the matter is in motion or not is irrelevant.

We have no satisfactory explanation as yet of mass but think it has something to do with bosons or more precisely the 'Higgs Boson'

Peace
:)


Good one .... but that is not to say that matter is created from energy. ie: there is no proof that energy is fundamental. The formula also can be interpreted as Energy comprises of two things, Matter in Motion. No motion, no Mass.

Yes I agree with the Higgs concept, or at least its my preference ... :)

I am from another forum, at present we are being overwhelmed with theologists, it would be nice if some of you could post there from time to time. Can I mention the name ??

cool bananas ... Drum

#22 snoopy

snoopy

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 261 posts

Posted 28 December 2007 - 01:13 AM

Really? Am I chopped liver here? Did you even read my responses? :shrug: Sigh...


I find your theory of tempororal relativity quite preposterous.

I read your responses but your belief systems and logic are so different to mine I dont know where to begin.

Peace:)

#23 EWright

EWright

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 667 posts

Posted 28 December 2007 - 01:16 AM

I find your theory of tempororal relativity quite preposterous.

I read your responses but your belief systems and logic are so different to mine I dont know where to begin.

Peace:)


How about at the beginning... we have time :shrug:

#24 snoopy

snoopy

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 261 posts

Posted 28 December 2007 - 01:20 AM

Good one .... but that is not to say that matter is created from energy. ie: there is no proof that energy is fundamental. The formula also can be interpreted as Energy comprises of two things, Matter in Motion. No motion, no Mass.

cool bananas ... Drum



Matter can be verifiably broken down into smaller and smaller parts seemingly almost without end, in this way matter is said not to be fundamental until you reach a point where matter can be no longer broken down.

Energy on the other hand cannot be broken down in this way, In this respect Energy is said to be more fundamental than matter.

Peace
:shrug:

#25 Drum

Drum

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 28 December 2007 - 03:17 PM

Inncorect, the very use of the word "moment," by definition, separates it from its past and future moments.

Possibly from its own past and future, but if you have been reading the continuing posts about time dislocation you would need to change this definition.

The human perception of motion is the constant perception of the future becoming the past.

Yes ... but what has this got to do with it ?

Don't forget strong gravitational forces.

Can we treat this as acceleration ?

No. In a basic sense, all that is moving locally to us in the absense of very high speeds or extreme gravity is moving through time at the same rate -- or rather, the rate that time arrives. The motion may vary in speed around us, but it does not produce a measurable variance in our day to day relation to time.

My argument is that time dilation occurs whenever we are subject to g-force over and above, or below, our normal earthly 'weight' which we are using as our 'base observer'. This g-force shift of Spacetime is measurable.

No. If time and light were frozen you would simply see the image registered in your brain at that moment from the light image captured in that moment. Nothing would cease to exist due to a variance in motions and timeframes. If you were to be litteral enough about it, then you would perceive nothing because your perception would also be frozen in time. If you allowed reflected light and your perception (and even your eyes) to move during this time, it would appear like a frozen scene from Matrix.

We (I) was allowing the observer some leeway over science and physics in order to conduct the experiment ... was not meant literally. ... :P

I don't know why Snoopy thought your ideas were preposterous. Perhaps you are familar with each other from other threads.

cool bananas ... Drum :)

#26 Drum

Drum

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 28 December 2007 - 03:32 PM

Matter can be verifiably broken down into smaller and smaller parts seemingly almost without end, in this way matter is said not to be fundamental until you reach a point where matter can be no longer broken down.

Energy on the other hand cannot be broken down in this way, In this respect Energy is said to be more fundamental than matter.
Peace
:P


Hmmmm Snoop .... What makes you say this ?? I am sure you now realise we have already left Space travel behind and are now in the land of the Quantum .... Introduced by you I might point out with the E = Mc^2 equation ...... LOL ;)

I could ask you some hard questions, but instead I'll post two quotes from my own forum. These posts are from a thread called 'The Eternal Evolving Universe'

( in reply to a post not shown) Matter is the ENTITY; mass and energy are dimensions of measurement. We cannot know what matter is; we can only define what attributes matter has. If you say that mass and matter are synonymous you are claiming that the attribute is the entity. Motion is also an attribute of matter. Leibniz stated it was the only essential attribute of matter; it’s not.


( in reply to a post not shown) There are many myths of Quantum Theory but the pure fact is that Planck found that a unique quantity of radiant energy is defined as the increment of emission or absorption. This value “h” is then used to determine many other units of quantum scalars; the rest is a lot of BS or hype to make the uneducated feel dumb or to sell a worthless book for a lot of money.


I think we have left the forest, and are now grubbing down amongst the roots of the trees ... LOL

cool bananas ... Drum :)

#27 EWright

EWright

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 667 posts

Posted 28 December 2007 - 08:12 PM

Possibly from its own past and future, but if you have been reading the continuing posts about time dislocation you would need to change this definition.


No -- then you would LIKE me to change the definition to fit your description. But the definition of a moment is singular in nature. You can divide units of time down to the pico-second, but a moment cannot exist both in the future present and the past. 12:00:01 cannot exist at 12:00:00 or 12:00:02

Yes ... but what has this got to do with it ?


Everything. Is this not the subject of your inquiry? I'm just stating the answer in the simplest form.

We (I) was allowing the observer some leeway over science and physics in order to conduct the experiment ... was not meant literally. ... :P


Ahhhhh... Fiction... I get it now. :)

#28 Drum

Drum

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 28 December 2007 - 10:03 PM

No -- then you would LIKE me to change the definition to fit your description. But the definition of a moment is singular in nature. You can divide units of time down to the pico-second, but a moment cannot exist both in the future present and the past. 12:00:01 cannot exist at 12:00:00 or 12:00:02


EW .... The point of this thread is not to define a Moment. But to speculate whether all moments exist now. Perhaps we are talking at crosspurposes. If you agree with General Relativity, (or special relativity) then you must also agree with Time Dilation. Time Dilation leads to Time Dislocation.

Time dislocation leads to the inescapable conclusion that:

12:00:00 01-jan-2008 &
12:00:01 01-jan-2009 &
13:00:00 01-jan-2050

All exist in Spacetime right Now !!

If you don't agree with this then how do you explain Time-Dislocation ??

I will re-post here the description of Time-Dislocation

Quote: (Originally Posted by Encyclopeadia of Science)
A major drawback in exploiting the effect of time dilation to achieve manned interstellar flight is that those who make the journey age less than those, including friends and family members, who remain behind. For very long journeys at high fractions of the speed of light, the time dislocation may be so great that many generations, and even millennia, may pass on the home planet before the interstellar travelers return. For example, an excursion from Earth to Rigel, 900 light-years away, and back, at (a constant) 99.99% of light-speed, would take 1,800 years as measured on Earth but only about 28 years as experienced by those on the spacecraft. It had been argued, for example by Sebastien von Hoerner, that such acute time dislocations – effectively hurling the travelers into the future – will prevent interstellar travel beyond a few tens of light-years and, therefore, the colonization of the Galaxy. However, there may be other ways to circumvent the light barrier.

So do you see that the travellers 28 years were 'stretched' across 1800 years for the observer. Can you see that a comparison of watches at any point will give you a 'past' for the observer, and a 'future' for the traveller at the moment of comparison, vice a versa and versa vice .... LOL

Other Readers please note: The moment of comparison is not possible in reality, because by the time the comparison was correlated time would have passed. It takes time to measure time.


(in relation to the observer being free of all effects) Ahhhhh... Fiction... I get it now


No ... not fiction ... but if we take the analogy of 'freeze framing' time to the limit then all electrons in the observers body would stop as well ... so the leeway is that the observer is freed from restrictions in this thought experiment.

cool bananas ... Drum :eek_big:

#29 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9148 posts

Posted 28 December 2007 - 11:32 PM

Similar questions and ideologies have been approached ALSO in the following thread:

http://hypography.co...nts-events.html



:evil::eek_big:

#30 EWright

EWright

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 667 posts

Posted 29 December 2007 - 02:56 AM

EW .... The point of this thread is not to define a Moment. But to speculate whether all moments exist now. Perhaps we are talking at crosspurposes. If you agree with General Relativity, (or special relativity) then you must also agree with Time Dilation. Time Dilation leads to Time Dislocation.

Time dislocation leads to the inescapable conclusion that:

12:00:00 01-jan-2008 &
12:00:01 01-jan-2009 &
13:00:00 01-jan-2050

All exist in Spacetime right Now !!

If you don't agree with this then how do you explain Time-Dislocation ??

I will re-post here the description of Time-Dislocation

So do you see that the travellers 28 years were 'stretched' across 1800 years for the observer. Can you see that a comparison of watches at any point will give you a 'past' for the observer, and a 'future' for the traveller at the moment of comparison, vice a versa and versa vice .... LOL

Other Readers please note: The moment of comparison is not possible in reality, because by the time the comparison was correlated time would have passed. It takes time to measure time.




No ... not fiction ... but if we take the analogy of 'freeze framing' time to the limit then all electrons in the observers body would stop as well ... so the leeway is that the observer is freed from restrictions in this thought experiment.

cool bananas ... Drum :eek_big:


So then would you argue that you have always existed and that you alway will? If so, where did you exist before you became a zygote?

#31 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 29 December 2007 - 03:47 AM

I don't know how you perceive it, but time is a measure of change. I don't know any other way to describe it. Think about it ... no change ... nothing to measure ??


This is by no means a good reply, Drum! "Time is a measure of change" is a tautology.

Let me break down the question for you:

1) What is "change"? How do you define it?
2) How do we measure this change? Where does it happen?
3) If change is measured by time, what is the equation that shows it? (and how much change is measured in how much time)
4) What is time?

If your answer to 4) is "time is the measure of change", then your logic is circular.

#32 Drum

Drum

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 29 December 2007 - 09:25 PM

Similar questions and ideologies have been approached ALSO in the following thread: http://hypography.co...nts-events.html
:evil::turtle:


Thanks for that IN .... will read through it

cool bananas ... Drum

#33 Drum

Drum

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 38 posts

Posted 29 December 2007 - 09:55 PM

So then would you argue that you have always existed and that you alway will? If so, where did you exist before you became a zygote?


Well I'll tell ya something EW ..... I don't really have a clue.

I can see how Spacetime could (in theory) contain all past, present and future events. But I can't really conceive how that can be conceptualised. I've tried !!

It seems that we have no trouble separating the past and present in our memory. Perhaps the past only exists in our memory, and as we retrieve events from our memory banks sequentially (?) this leads to a perception of change, of time progressing forward.

I think we have reached the end of this thread ... It does not really seem possible to go forward.

Here is a reply from another thread on the same subject ...

When we look into the night sky we can say what we see occurred in the past but the light we are seeing is in the here-and-now; at least within the functioning time of the eye. At best we can only say the photons we are seeing are so many years old and that’s only if you accept the idea of a moving light particle through space. We cannot see the past, move into the past, and the same goes for the future. Everything is the present for ALL OBSERVERS; we just can’t experience or measure every observers present at the same time; it’s all relative.


and ..... from the WIKI

Presentism (philosophy of time)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In the philosophy of time, presentism is the belief that only the present exists and the future and the past are unreal.

Past and future "entities" are to be construed as logical constructions or fictions. The opposite of presentism is 'eternalism', which is the belief that things in the past and things yet to come exist eternally. One other view (that has not been held by very many philosophers) is sometimes called the 'growing block' theory of time, which is a theory that takes the past and present to exist but the future to be nonexistent. Presentism is compatible with Galilean relativity, in which time is independent of space but is probably incompatible with Lorentzian/Einsteinian relativity in conjunction with certain other philosophical theses which many find uncontroversial.

Presentism can also be used more loosely to refer to a narrow focus on the conditions of the moment.


Tormod ....
I have been dodging your question ... LOL .. Do any of the quotes in this post help ??

This is by no means a good reply, Drum! "Time is a measure of change" is a tautology. Let me break down the question for you:

1) What is "change"? How do you define it?
2) How do we measure this change? Where does it happen?
3) If change is measured by time, what is the equation that shows it? (and how much change is measured in how much time)
4) What is time?

If your answer to 4) is "time is the measure of change", then your logic is circular.


I don't really have an answer to your question, except more of the same, and I agree that the logic is circular, unfortunately I am unable to break the circle.

I don't necessarily support the following quote, but its worth a read ... also I don't think the author is a Scientist ...

A fundamental property of elements is that they are made up of atoms that are absolutely identical in every respect. Electrons are similarly identical, as are subatomic particles

Time is subdivided into increasingly small partitions until there is reached an almost (but not quite) infinitesimally small division hypothesized as the "Planck instant," in which, like the tick of a clock, quantum states change from one condition to another

Time and Space (click here) ... a different view


cool bananas ... Drum :turtle:

#34 snoopy

snoopy

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 261 posts

Posted 29 December 2007 - 10:13 PM

I think we have reached the end of this thread ... It does not really seem possible to go forward.



I don't really have an answer to your question, except more of the same, and I agree that the logic is circular, unfortunately I am unable to break the circle.


cool bananas ... Drum :turtle:


I wouldnt give up just yet can you explain why you are unable to break the circle ?