What is time?

[Pyrotex]

Well, I will agree with you up to here but from then on, I don't think you have thought it out so well. ...But before we conclude that description, we need to look at mass energy effects. :rainbow:

False! The time passage for the traveler must be identical to the length of time he thinks it took to turn the stem. :naughty...

Does anyone out there argue with my comments? ...

Well, duh! I argue with your comments. My model was based on different assumptions than you state above. I assumed the user moves the watch hand and then "triggers" the time machine. He ceases to exist instanteously at that instant and re-exists at the 5-minute mark (or however many he dialed).

 

But in the meantime, mass and energy must be allowed to conserve. The minimum solution (there are others yielding gigatons of explosive energy and then absorbing gigatons of ambient energy) is simply that his instantaneous passage through time carves out a "shell" of his bodily passage. This shell would behave much like a perfect force field.

 

If you are going to add more requirements, more assumptions, more constraints, then of course, the problem changes and another solution is needed.

[Pyrotex]

...Pyrotex, you're pretty good, tell me how they seem to act if you play catch with one. :rainbow:

hhmmmm... tomorrow...

[Doctordick]

Well, duh! I argue with your comments. My model was based on different assumptions than you state above. I assumed the user moves the watch hand and then "triggers" the time machine.

The assumption was not only unnecessary but wrong! :rainbow:

When the stem is turned, the wearer (and the wearer only) is transported to the new time indicated on the device.

But in the meantime, mass and energy must be allowed to conserve.

That is an assumption as there is no information as to how the machine works; it may consume energy from some energy source inside the device or the effect could be exothermic and produce energy in operation. At the moment we are ignorant of such things; we only know what it does. Which I described very carefully in the post. :rain:

... his instantaneous passage through time ...

Instantaneous is usually presumed there; that is why I specified that the change is tied exactly to the position of the hands on the display (what the stem was moving). But I am proud of you for realizing that the common perception (that he simply disappears) is physically illogical. :angel:

If you are going to add more requirements, more assumptions, more constraints, then of course, the problem changes and another solution is needed.

It seems to me that the requirement that the time position of the wearer is exactly the reading on the device is sufficient to require each and every conclusion I put forth. If I am wrong in that, please point it out and explain to me what my error is.:rainbow:

 

Have fun – Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[dad2bkmj]

any one else getting 4 e-mails for the same new post

[UV-gap]

i don't think i'm understanding what you mean about light and time. could you elaborate a little? :rainbow: light (made up of photons) does take time to travel. but i guess that's not what you mean. i thought relativity said time would appear to 'slow down', not stop altogether at light speeds relative to everything else.

 

Light travels and yet it has no time to travel. (light can travel for billions of years and never lose time, not even a millisecond)

 

Don't worry ... physicists don't understand it either. If they did then physics would be dead. The absolute is that "Light has no time" And if light has no time then we cannot have time because it is just a thought like light, and distance, space, travel.

 

The other absolute that physics gives us is the quantum-gap. Focus on the quantum-gap and the particles become just thoughts.

Focus on the particles and physics becomes a wild-goose-chase of one impossibility creating/chasing others.

[ughaibu]

"As the stem is turned" would've been clearer.

[Doctordick]

"As the stem is turned" would've been clearer.

Ok, :angel: :rainbow: :rain: I'll go along with that! :rainbow:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[Pyrotex]

The assumption was not only unnecessary but wrong! :rainbow: That is an assumption as there is no information as to how the machine works; it may consume energy from some energy source inside the device or the effect could be exothermic and produce energy in operation. At the moment we are ignorant of such things; ...

Gosh, Dick, but I don't think that disagreeing with or misunderstanding you is in violation of any Cosmic Law! :Guns: Let's just say I was mistaken in my interpretation and leave it at that. :rainbow:

 

Okay, the traveler advances faster AS the dial is turned. Let's define the start of dialing as Ts and the final stopping point of dialing as time Tf.

 

To my eyes the Duration between Ts and Tf are Do = (Tf-Ts) seconds apart. To the traveler, it depends on how fast he turned the dial, say it took him a duration of Dt seconds. We are assured that Dt < Do.

 

The traveler could be a time ball, so I may switch contexts. However, what do I see? I see the traveler (ball) but any movement of the traveler is slowed down by the ratio of Dt / Do. During that period, say the traveler jumped upwards. During my Do seconds, he experiences gravity only for Dt < Do seconds, therefore his upward velocity will be reduced (as seen by me) by deltaVt = g*Dt, which is less than the deltaVo = g*Do I would expect for an ordinary body. Similar argument for the time balls.

 

To my observation, people or balls in "time-translation" will bounce higher and take longer to come down. A time ball hit hard (fast) enough will fly almost a linear ballistic path, and might escape from Earth entirely.

 

A small problem exists in your definition of slaving "time-translation" speed to the distance traveled by a time-ball. It would be better to slave it to velocity or even accelleration; makes the math a LOT easier. :angel:

 

So. How close did I get?

[Doctordick]

Hi Pyrotex: I didn't mean to give you the idea that I didn't see your thoughts as very reasonable. In fact, I strongly suspect you may be the most astute observer here. I have just been at it for a lot more years. ;)

Okay, the traveler advances faster AS the dial is turned.

"AS the dial is turned faster": remember you go to exactly the same time as the reading on the dial. It is a strictly linear addition of time. Nevertheless, you are absolutely right when you say the most important factor here is Dt/Do. Having uncovered that alone I would say you did quite well. The "experiencing gravity" issue is questionable. I like your analysis anyway, but the real effect is dependent upon factors not yet defined so we will have to leave that to experiment. :)

 

Meanwhile, the critical factor I was trying to bring to attention has to do with that apparent velocity.

A small problem exists in your definition of slaving "time-translation" speed to the distance traveled by a time-ball. It would be better to slave it to velocity or even accelleration; makes the math a LOT easier. ;)

Perhaps, but it then wouldn't yield the consequences I am trying to bring up here. :rainbow:

 

Let us look at a time ball traveling across the laboratory. First, I want to pick a specific trajectory. In order that it travel along a straight line and to remove rotation, let it slide along a air table to avoid both gravitational acceleration and rotation. Let it be traveling at one foot per second if the time machine were off. If the path is ten feet long, it will take ten seconds to complete the trajectory; however, with the time machine turned on, the ball would move into the future one second for each foot covered. It follows that an observer in the laboratory would see the ball as arriving at the other end of the track twenty seconds after the start. The apparent velocity of the ball would be .5 feet per second. :angel:

 

Thinking about that for a second, suppose we have a professional baseball pitcher on hand who can throw this thing at about fifty feet per second. Now you would expect the ball to cover the ten feet in about one fifth of a second. But, if the time machine is functioning, it will once more go ten seconds into the future. It follows that the observer in the laboratory would see the ball as arriving at the other end of the laboratory 10.2 seconds later. :lol:

 

If we were to get a cannon capable of firing the ball at five hundred feet per second (if there were no time machine). In this case the ball would appear to take 10.02 seconds to cross the laboratory. Extend this analysis further if you wish. If you could achieve an infinite velocity, the ball would appear to cross the laboratory in ten seconds. The ball is constrained to appear to travel slower than one foot per second. :rainbow:

 

Earlier you brought up conservation of energy. As I said, how the time machine works is unknown and there may be a great power source inside the ball so we can't depend on anything there. But conservation of momentum is another story; that is a dynamic phenomena which carries through interactions. At the velocities we are talking about here, classical Newtonian mechanics are sufficient and whatever momentum was given the ball at the beginning must be deposited in the laboratory wall at the end. If that momentum is to be given by mv and then the inertial mass of a time ball must head off to infinity as the apparent velocity goes to one foot per second. :Guns:

 

Now that apparent increase in inertial mass is an interesting factor. Under standard physics, gravitational mass and inertial mass are always the same. If we take that to be true here, the mass energy being given to the time ball is phenomenal and we can only conclude that the power supply is exterior to the time ball. There must be some energy receiver inside the ball. Just the effective mass associated with the energy levels being talked about here would cause the time ball at rest have an inordinate mass. :lol:

 

At any rate, I think the relationships embedded in mental structure I have introduced here are rather interesting. The "time balls" would display a sort of pseudo relativistic behavior. It clearly is not exactly analogous to standard relativity as the Dt/Do factor is given by (Vm-Va)/Va where Vm equals the maximum velocity and Va equals the apparent velocity. Likewise, the apparent mass is given by Va/(Vm-Va) times the rest mass. This looks very little like the usual relativistic factor, but it the phenomena should still raise your curiosity. :Guns:

 

There turns out to be a subtle change in the above thought experiment which yields exactly the standard relativistic effects. Think about it for a moment and maybe read my paper again. :eek:

 

Have fun – Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[tarak]

Time is the movement of thought.

[questor]

Dr.Dick, what would happen if the universe became frozen at a temperature where all particulate action down to the bosons (and below) ceased ? no events are occurring, no decay is ocurring, everything has stopped. you are frozen in this universe and the freeze lasts 1 million years. suddenly the thaw occurs, has time passed? have you aged? where was time during this period?

[Doctordick]

I give you all "time to think" and absolutely everyone apparently takes it as "time to forget". I understand that ninety percent of the people posting on this forum are intellectually immature and lack the understanding of scientific reasoning required to deduce the consequences of simple propositions but the total lack of intellectual curiosity is somewhat appalling. I had hoped that one or two of you would grasp the significance of what I was pointing out. :Waldo:

Meanwhile, the critical factor I was trying to bring to attention has to do with that apparent velocity.

... [by the simple hypothesis that the ball moves into the future by an amount equivalent to the distance it has moved] ... The ball is constrained to appear to travel slower than one foot per second. :Waldo:

... [simple conservation of momentum yields] ... The "time balls" would display a sort of pseudo relativistic behavior. ... the phenomena should still raise your curiosity. :beer:

But apparently not! Since no one seems to have had the intellectual wherewithal to comprehend what caused that "pseudo relativistic effect", I will point out that the effect was a direct consequence of the two totally contradictory concepts of time everyone seems to want to carry around in their heads. :(

 

One concept of time is the apparent phenomena experienced by the entity proceeding into the future (the concept of time consistent with the physical laws governing the detailed behavior of that entity: his biological clock if the entity is living or the physical clock governing the phenomena if the entity is not living)

 

The second concept of time is "being somewhere at a particular time" (the concept of time as a parameter which determines the possibility of two different entities interacting: they have to be at the same place at the same "time").

 

The first step in understanding reality is comprehending these two concepts are internally contradictory and that both concepts are equally important: they deserve exact independent recognition.

There turns out to be a subtle change in the above thought experiment which yields exactly the standard relativistic effects.

Since no one seems to have deduced what that subtle change is, I will give it to you explicitly:

 

If time #1, concept number one (time consistent with the physical laws governing the internal behavior of an entity), is seen as a parameter defining the mechanical unrolling of the future.

 

And time #2, the interaction of "different" entities (an interaction, the existence of which is determined by overlap of quantum mechanical wave functions), is seen as a simple fourth axis orthogonal to our three dimensional space.

 

Then, simple universal momentum quantization in that fourth dimension (which yields what appears to be mass) projects out the visibility of that dimension (via Heisenberg uncertainty) and yields exactly the same (in detail) "pseudo relativistic phenomena" Einstein's relativity was invented to explain!

 

The nice thing is that this paradigm is perfectly consistent with both quantum mechanics and all experimental relativistic phenomena and totally removes the conflict between general relativistic phenomena and quantum mechanics. What more could one ask? :confused:

 

And, questor, your question is simply meaningless as the statement of the question is itself internally inconsistent: that is to say, the question contains the implicit inclusion of exactly the same contradictory concepts of time I am attempting to bring to everyones attention. :confused:

 

Have fun – Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[InfiniteNow]

I give you all "time to think" and absolutely everyone apparently takes it as "time to forget". I understand that ninety percent of the people posting on this forum are intellectually immature and lack the understanding of scientific reasoning required to deduce the consequences of simple propositions but the total lack of intellectual curiosity is somewhat appalling.

Nuh Uhh... Am not! You're just a boogar head! And <deleted>! You're the only person in here that could throw a rock at the ground and miss!

 

 

...which is why I like ya. :Waldo:

 

edit: There's a limit to joking and being sarcastic.

 

What if we just didn't feel like we had anything further to add to the dialogue, or, just didn't care to?

[InfiniteNow]

I really love it when scientists quote their own work... According to InfiniteNow et. al, you will clearly see that I exhibit god-like powers and, as demonstrated in a brilliant 1989 experiment on the nature of self conducted by InfiniteNow...

 

 

However, I understand that you are simply posing a challenge, hoping to re-light this fire or rekindle discussion and figure someone will come out of the shadows to engage you out of a sense of defending themselves. You are stuck... you need to be engaged so you can move past this mental impasse you are having, and you've chosen irritation as your method of accomplishing this.

 

Time is a four letter word. Perhaps we should first define "word," "letter," "numbering systems which themselves define," "four," and "existence." "Linguistics," "theories of mind," "understanding," "etceteras etceteras..."

 

However, this isn't my thread, and I really don't care to reshape it.

 

 

Cheers ole boy. :Waldo:

[Doctordick]

Nuh Uhh... Am not! You're just a boogar head! And your mom smells like poo! You're the only person in here that could throw a rock at the ground and miss!

Now that is just an immature response. Intelligence certainly is not your long suit. :eek:

What if we just didn't feel like we had anything further to add

And why would that be? Perhaps it is because you simply don't have anything to contribute to an intelligent discussion. ;)

or, just didn't care to?

i.e., you also lack intellectual curiosity. Ignorance does appear to be bliss doesn't it? :eek:

However, I understand that you are simply posing a challenge, hoping to re-light this fire or rekindle discussion and figure someone will come out of the shadows to engage you out of a sense of defending themselves.

No, I was simply trying to scare up a little intelligent conversation on a very fundamental issue of the philosophy of science. That would be, exactly what do people mean when they use the term "time". No one here seems to spend much time thinking about it. :)

 

As I said, the lack of interest in intelligent conversation here is appalling for a "science" forum. True or false? :hihi:

I really don't care :eek:

I think you have made yourself quite clear in that regard. In deference to your desires, I would appreciate it very much if you would be so kind as to place me on your ignore list. ;)

 

Have fun – Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[infamous]

Nuh Uhh... Am not! You're just a boogar head! And your mom smells like poo! You're the only person in here that could throw a rock at the ground and miss!

I suggest you read our FAQ page InfiniteNow; This insulting conduct is not allowed and could result in banishment. Please refrain from falling into this type of behavior............Infy

[CraigD]

I give you all "time to think" and absolutely everyone apparently takes it as "time to forget". I understand that ninety percent of the people posting on this forum are intellectually immature and lack the understanding of scientific reasoning required to deduce the consequences of simple propositions but the total lack of intellectual curiosity is somewhat appalling.

Nuh Uhh... Am not! You're just a boogar head! And your mom smells like poo! You're the only person in here that could throw a rock at the ground and miss!

I suggest you read our FAQ page InfiniteNow; This insulting conduct is not allowed and could result in banishment. Please refrain from falling into this type of behavior............Infy

So, there’s no “exception in the case of obvious parody” to the “no insults” rule?

 

I perceived InfiniteNow’s post to be a parody of DoctorDick’s. It would be a more accurate parody, however, if it read

Nuh Uhh... I believe I am not! I understand that ninety percent of you're just boogar heads! And I suspect your mom smells like poo! You're possibly the only person in here that could throw a rock at the ground and miss!

On second thought, I thinks infamous is right – boogar and poo talk has no place in these forums. By 2-to-1, according to wikiquote, sarcasm (and is cousin, parody) is a bad practice. :hihi: