Possibility of absolute time

[Kriminal99]

This is just to prove a point to the typical science buff who has little understanding of philosophy or reasoning in general.

 

First definitions:

 

0 - rest frame which no human being has ever experienced

c - speed of light

# - any number

#c - speed in relation to 0 in terms of number times c

Unknown - an unspecefied occurence or set of rules governing reality

 

Suppose that the universe was governed by the following algorithm.

 

If {0 < speed < 50c} Then {Special Relativity}

If {speed > 50c} Then {Unknown}

 

So this just points to the issues related to induction, and of course the answer is that we can't address this possibility unless we have some experience that would point to it and cause us to doubt our current beliefs. But what if the evidence is already there we are just don't typically look at it because of some assumption we made etc? You can't just call someone a crackpot because they disagree with you and it makes you angry. The only way to honestly defeat someone in an argument is for them to admit they were wrong, because before that point you can't be sure you understand their reasoning. And you are always capable of being wrong.

[Tormod]

I fail to see the point of this argument, Krim. What are you getting at?

[arkain101]

If you are saying there is a possibility that there is absolute time or not absolute time.. not sure what either means. Then I may be hearing what your saying. That time isnt relative? (from using the title of the post)

 

Myself, I do not beleive in time related to the universe. Which is also why I do not think light has a restricted speed limit in a vacume of nothingness. Things that move need a force to move them as far as I am concirned. Light travels in different directions and interacts at total speeds of 2x C. Regarldess of the "rules" applied to light.

 

Off topic but,

Lets say we find the fundamental object to all things in the universe (like the string for example) The smallest building block of all things "mass". We still have to ask these questions, Why is it there, where did come from, and why am I here able to see it.

Nothing can exist without imagination. This means, if there is no life concious of the surroundings nothing exists because there is nothing experiencing what we call time. So in a sense time is just a lifeforce.

[Jay-qu]

sorry but the universe does not follow algorithms. It doesnt run lines of code and execute comands - things just happen according to laws. Some of these laws we think we have discovered, and maybe we have but there is still more to uncover.

 

and by the way in your algorithm what happens at 50c?

[arkain101]

If one was to build a model of the best estimation possible of a universe, one could predict the life of the universe not unlike that of the prediction of our own weather, although much more difficult obviously. With the model in place the universe would most definalty follow lines of code and execute comands like reading a story book. In the big picture, the universe can only exist in ONE way, this is, the way it functions over a span of "time", and so, is predictable with the correct data to accuratly model the plan its possible random course is destined to.

[Qfwfq]

If {0 < speed < 50c} Then {Special Relativity}

If {speed > 50c} Then {Unknown}

Speed of what?

 

In any case we would expect {Unknown} not to be incompatible with what we do observe. Corollary: if it's the speed of a propagation of causality that you're talking about and some way exists to use it, then we can also use it to go backward in time.

 

You can't just call someone a crackpot because they disagree with you and it makes you angry.

Crackpots don't make me angry. Neither do people I disagree with, unless they have annoying manners, a quite different thing from just disagreeing. :)

 

The only way to honestly defeat someone in an argument is for them to admit they were wrong, because before that point you can't be sure you understand their reasoning. And you are always capable of being wrong.

Double-bladed weapon. If someone can't understand my reasoning and see the fallacity of theirs, that's tough for them. I'm under no obligation to convince them and I don't have to either defeat or agree with them. :)

 

I'm not sure how you hope to prove a point to a science buff who does have understanding of philosophy and reasoning in general, so I'm even less sure how you could prove anything to the typical science buff who doesn't. :)

[infamous]

The only way to honestly defeat someone in an argument is for them to admit they were wrong, because before that point you can't be sure you understand their reasoning.

The noble object of participation at this forum should not be to defeat anyone but rather to share information with others so everyone can come to a greater understanding.

 

 

And you are always capable of being wrong.

As are you also capable Kriminal99.

[CraigD]

In the spirit of Kriminal99’s good words to the effect that it’s preferable to reach a state of agreement concerning a subject than to “win” an argument about it (which I heartily endorse), I’ve some problems with his opening sentence, and seek to modify the understanding of the subject that lead him to write it.

This is just to prove a point to the typical science buff who has little understanding of philosophy or reasoning in general.

Re “typical”: I’m hard-pressed to envision a “typical” science buff. Even since the introduction of compulsory public Science education in most “wired” countries, Science enthusiasts are fairly uncommon, and tend to be quirky and individually distinct.

 

Re “understanding of philosophy”: In my personal experience, I’ve known of very few mature, Science-literate people who were not reasonably versed in Philosophy or reasoning in general. The bulk of Science-literate people I’ve have at least a few years of college-level education, and a wide-spread curiosity, the combination of which tends to have lead them study a reasonable amount of Philosophy.

 

Many Science enthusiasts are young, and have simply not had the time or opportunity to read much Philosophy (or, often, much Science). If their enthusiasm lasts, however, I expect most of them will go on to study both.

 

The split of Science and Philosophy into 2 separate disciplines is, as many scienceforum readers surely know, a recent historic development. A relic of the pre-20th century days in which scientists were generally assumed to also be philosophers is that a person with an advance degree in Science - a PhD – is still title a “doctor of Philosophy”, not a “doctor of Science” – a SD – a distinction that has been made in more applied fields, such as Medicine (MD) and Law (JD).

[Qfwfq]

The split of Science and Philosophy into 2 separate disciplines is, as many scienceforum readers surely know, a recent historic development. A relic of the pre-20th century days in which scientists were generally assumed to also be philosophers is that a person with an advance degree in Science - a PhD – is still title a “doctor of Philosophy”, not a “doctor of Science” – a SD – a distinction that has been made in more applied fields, such as Medicine (MD) and Law (JD).

I quite agree, although I have known many a researcher in physics that will refuse to consider philosophy interesting, even epistemology in some cases. It hasn't been very healthy thing, to call natural philosophy with the name of science. Of course, today, many people's idea of "science" has more to do with technology.

[Doctordick]

Of course, today, many people's idea of "science" has more to do with technology.

The worst part is that many of the people you refer to are "Philosophical Doctorates". :) :) :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

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

[Kriminal99]

I fail to see the point of this argument, Krim. What are you getting at?

 

The point is if someone comes onto the forum and says "Hey look at this time is absolute, as evidenced by this that and the other" and some science fanatic calls this person a crackpot or becomes angry at their own inability to deal with this person's arguments etc than there is no justification for their actions. There is always room for previous ideas to be wrong, and you never know that you understand his argument and why it is wrong until you see him accept that you have pointed out an error in his argument. Otherwise you are probably just considering a straw man argument and the person knows it, and thats why they are still arguing with you.

 

sorry but the universe does not follow algorithms. It doesnt run lines of code and execute comands - things just happen according to laws. Some of these laws we think we have discovered, and maybe we have but there is still more to uncover.

 

and by the way in your algorithm what happens at 50c?

 

How do you know what the universe does and does not do? Anyways the algorithm represents what would be our primitive interpretation of what happens... In this situation there would be some reality that caused this to be the case, but we might not know what. What happens at 50c is irrelevant to the argument.

[Kriminal99]

Speed of what?

 

In any case we would expect {Unknown} not to be incompatible with what we do observe. Corollary: if it's the speed of a propagation of causality that you're talking about and some way exists to use it, then we can also use it to go backward in time.

 

Crackpots don't make me angry. Neither do people I disagree with, unless they have annoying manners, a quite different thing from just disagreeing. :wave:

 

Double-bladed weapon. If someone can't understand my reasoning and see the fallacity of theirs, that's tough for them. I'm under no obligation to convince them and I don't have to either defeat or agree with them. :lol:

 

I'm not sure how you hope to prove a point to a science buff who does have understanding of philosophy and reasoning in general, so I'm even less sure how you could prove anything to the typical science buff who doesn't. :eek2:

 

1) Speed of any object, in comparison to a rest frame which is outside the scope of any human experience.

 

2) Passive aggressiveness is interpreted as anger for the purposes of this argument. Perhaps in some circles passive aggressive behavior is not recognized as being driven by anger and insecurity, but its easy to determine logically how and why it is as well as when it is being done and certain people will always see right through this type of "socially acceptable" aggression and call each other on it.

 

3)If you haven't convinced the other person and yet you believe without a doubt that it is still always their reasoning that is fallacious, then you have missed the point and it is considering that more likely you who is suffering from the reasoning deficiency (unless the other person is doing the same). The only time you should be sure of your beliefs is when there is nothing challenging them, and someone disagreeing with you is challenging your beliefs. When you REALLY understand someone's argument and why they are wrong it takes no time at all to convince them that they are wrong or get them to a point where they have nothing to argue (and if you haven't pissed them off theyll just leave) Secondly, while it is true now that people who follow proper channels can avoid understanding their beliefs to the degree that they are capable of communicating them to other people who know nothing of them or disagree at first and yet still have signifigant impact on society ,(Get a PHD become a scientist, act as an authoritative source of information and have governments and businesses run based on your claims) I believe it is unlikely that society will suffer the inherent fallicies of this type of system forever or the mentally subversive publicly run education system it requires to operate.

 

4) huh?

 

The noble object of participation at this forum should not be to defeat anyone but rather to share information with others so everyone can come to a greater understanding.

 

 

As are you also capable Kriminal99.

 

What is the justification for this otherwise arbitrary claim? For that matter what is your definition of "noble"? By making any claim that anyone doesn't already agree with you are probably going to start a debate/argument simply because people don't just throw their old ideas out the window when they are emotionally dependent on them or just on being right in general. "Sharing information" inevitably leads to some sort of competition, and it is probably such competion that has motivated many great ideas is this not the case?

 

Why do you feel the need to mention that I am capable of being wrong? Im sorry but I don't think it is possible to build a house of knowledge using blocks that you aren't even aware of the form of. What you said sounds really nice but the truth is even as you say it you are acting competively in some form. IMO the best that can be done is to develop a spirit of sportsmanship about the whole thing.

 

In the spirit of Kriminal99’s good words to the effect that it’s preferable to reach a state of agreement concerning a subject than to “win” an argument about it (which I heartily endorse), I’ve some problems with his opening sentence, and seek to modify the understanding of the subject that lead him to write it.Re “typical”: I’m hard-pressed to envision a “typical” science buff. Even since the introduction of compulsory public Science education in most “wired” countries, Science enthusiasts are fairly uncommon, and tend to be quirky and individually distinct.

 

Re “understanding of philosophy”: In my personal experience, I’ve known of very few mature, Science-literate people who were not reasonably versed in Philosophy or reasoning in general. The bulk of Science-literate people I’ve have at least a few years of college-level education, and a wide-spread curiosity, the combination of which tends to have lead them study a reasonable amount of Philosophy.

 

Many Science enthusiasts are young, and have simply not had the time or opportunity to read much Philosophy (or, often, much Science). If their enthusiasm lasts, however, I expect most of them will go on to study both.

 

The split of Science and Philosophy into 2 separate disciplines is, as many scienceforum readers surely know, a recent historic development. A relic of the pre-20th century days in which scientists were generally assumed to also be philosophers is that a person with an advance degree in Science - a PhD – is still title a “doctor of Philosophy”, not a “doctor of Science” – a SD – a distinction that has been made in more applied fields, such as Medicine (MD) and Law (JD).

 

Well im not sure what you were drawing from when you say that I said its better to reach a state of agreement... I believe it is better for the truth to be discovered in a debate than it is to sacrifice it in favor of winning an argument, if thats what you got from what I said then ok..

 

The typical is only in regards to how they might react to a claim that challenges any scientific belief. Its probably more driven than the fact that they are human beings who do not live in a society where philosophy has been pushed to its limits rather than the fact that they are science buffs. In any case perhaps the emphasis was meant to be placed on anyone who has faith in the claims and methods of science as opposed to only people who really like science.

 

Its debatable (and often is debated) what constitutes someone who understands philosophy. Obviously the degree to which a person understands and makes use of what they learn in philosophy is an issue too, and there is a very wide spectrum that people can occupy as far as that is concerned. Personally I identify it by someone who has the willingness and ability to consider any idea or belief as objectively as possible. Many philosophy professors fall short of that even. After hearing large numbers of matter of factly given straw man interpretations and poor understanding of what we were reading by psychology phd's teaching various philosophy classes, but who can still be said to have "studied" many works of philosophy, you might find yourself being more discriminating about who can be classified as a "philosopher".

 

Personally though I'm not sure I agree with even what you are saying without some sort of objective survey/poll. At least at the university I went to (no MIT mind you) I heard way too many arrogant science professors (as well as science students taught by them) talk about philosophy as being useless and outdated. If your saying that the scientists that are worth anything are scientists AND philosophers, and that there are enough out there to make decent progress, I would agree with you. Do I think this means scientists are capable of being authoritative sources of information? No, because they do not have the same biases as the people they would share information with. Do I think this means that their work should not be critiqued by the average person acting as a philosopher? No, for the same reason. (especially in fields that most overlap what the average person has experience of such as psychology)

[Doctordick]

The whole issue of relativity is that fact that there are different "time" delineations which are equivalent for any experiment. That is to say, the whole interest of relativity is how one transforms measurements from one particular representation of experimental "measurements" to another representation. The theory of relativity is fundamentally the idea that all these different frames of reference are equivalent. There is nothing in the theory which precludes the existence of a special or "absolute" frame. In fact, there are two very significant "absolute" frames which are easy to define. One would be a frame attached to the experimentalist himself (the frame in which he does not move). Another obvious "absolute" frame (and an interesting one by the way) is the "rest frame of the universe itself" (where the sum total of the momentum of the universe is zero). And, by the way, what theory would you give for a frame where the momentum of the universe had some value in some direction? Just what direction do you think we should choose? :frown: :confused: :confused: :confused:

 

If you have any understanding of relativity at all you must comprehend that these rather unique frames are as good as any others. And, they are "absolute" in the sense that they are all quite unique. :edizzy:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

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

[Kriminal99]

The whole issue of relativity is that fact that there are different "time" delineations which are equivalent for any experiment. That is to say, the whole interest of relativity is how one transforms measurements from one particular representation of experimental "measurements" to another representation. The theory of relativity is fundamentally the idea that all these different frames of reference are equivalent. There is nothing in the theory which precludes the existence of a special or "absolute" frame. In fact, there are two very significant "absolute" frames which are easy to define. One would be a frame attached to the experimentalist himself (the frame in which he does not move). Another obvious "absolute" frame (and an interesting one by the way) is the "rest frame of the universe itself" (where the sum total of the momentum of the universe is zero). And, by the way, what theory would you give for a frame where the momentum of the universe had some value in some direction? Just what direction do you think we should choose? :lol: :hihi: :cup: :cup:

 

If you have any understanding of relativity at all you must comprehend that these rather unique frames are as good as any others. And, they are "absolute" in the sense that they are all quite unique. :cup:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

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

 

I understand what you are saying, I guess the main idea of what I was trying to say is that there could be a range of speeds within which the speed of every seperate thing we have experienced so far is contained and only within this range would we experience SR. I know how special relativity works, but if you can step back and look at it from a pre SR viewpoint once again you will get what I am saying. It could be that SR only occurs within this range of speeds and then outside that range of speeds something else occurs. As long as SR is the rule, I will never see something go over C speed in relation to me. However perhaps it IS going over that speed and Im just not able to percieve it, until a certain point where the rules change.

 

Of course the best defense against such an argument is that its obviously motivated by pre SR intuitions, but that doesn't disprove the argument. Disproving it is of course impossible, because we could never know it isn't the case... We could only assume until shown otherwise.

[CraigD]

I agree with Post#13 at to the useful meaning of the term “absolute time”, so I won’t restate it here, other than to affirm it’s a useful term that need not contradict Special Relativity.

 

A problem with hypothetical Physics that posit the distance as between 2 or more object, as measured by any observer, changing in excess of the speed of light, but support SR, is that their interpretation of the presence of (-1)^.5 in the results of SR’s equations tends to be that the objects are causally disconnected, which is to say, mutually unknowable. The scientific method depends on the existence of testable predictions, so theories that make a priori untestable predictions are by most definitions not scientific. It’s hard to interest a materialist in that which can never be perceived, only imagined, even if the Physics of this unperceivable domain are novel and interesting.

 

If such a theory claimed that its various causally disconnected domains were or will be causally connected in the past of future, it becomes more acceptable to the materialist, especially if it suggests a resolution of the various anthropic principle conundrums by, for example, proposing detailed relationships between the domains relative superluminal velocities and one or more of their fundamental physical constants.

[HydrogenBond]

Time appears to be quantitized. Humans instinctively break down time into quanta like seconds and light years. Also energy, vibration, transitions, etc., all exist using discrete quanta of time. The only place where time becomes a continuum is within philosophy and/or within the human imagination.

 

Also, if one looks at special relativity the only three variables that are not fixed with respect to refereence are mass, distance and time. The rest of the laws of physcis are the same in all reference. If time was fixed it should be among the fixed laws of physics. Instead it is one the three primary variables by which all the laws of phsyics are pertubated with respect to refernce. This suggests time being a potential quanta that can gain potential energy at relativistic speeds.

[Christopher]

Hi Kriminal99

 

Good to see you again, I see you are still provoking the statuse quo :hihi:

 

 

Here’s what I think is the truth of the matter, the complexity we observe developing is only a temporal view of a system that contains a duality, this duality giving the other its contextual meaning.

 

Complexity in its final form, does not exist as a prior form, but as an eternal form. A singularity .

 

What we observe as time and movement between a simple ordered state and higher ordered state is merely a cognitive movement between the two aspects of time, one of eternity, Were all things are complete whole forms and the temporal state of becoming.

 

Let me approach this from architectural view point. When building a structure using regular geometry, small mistakes in the initial measurements will be amplified as the construction progresses, until a point is reached were the initial small instability surpasses and overwhelms the stability factors causing a catastrophic collapse, destroying the intended design.

 

Vesica Attractor

 

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-26-t-000007.html

 

Now catastrophe theory combined with embedded phi-wave dynamics and a dissipative physical components is were this scenario happens in reverse.

The instant all the physical and dynamic elements arrive they cause a catastrophic constructive collapse toward a higher ordered state, in this particular scenario the attractor forms around water waves. Initial instabilities become creative as they are compresses by the horizontal “whirlwind” or phi-waves dynamics. This state of creative instability is referred to as “edge of chaos” Coined by Doyne Farmer this state exist between the chaotic regime and the order regime. These attractors self-construct, by generating a circular vortex drawing energy from its environment. Most of these forms are short lived as in actual vortexes of just wind and water.

 

 

The reason I keep comparing the vesica attractor to a black hole is because they both form stable attractors one though gravity, the other though cognition. These two forces seem to be the only way to stabilizing a point in the quantum field.

 

This math is central to evolution, it is how biological systems self organize, and evolve.

 

 

It is the geometry of creation.

------------------------------------------------

This scenario is counter intuitive because it is completely diametrically opposed to how we believe the universe operates.

These two forces of gravity and cognition seem to emanate from the eternal source creating what we perceive as time and movement between past and future. Now you my ask, why is this…where is god the creator in this equation, how does man fit into it all. consider the following.

 

Since god represents the eternal aspect of conciseness,

Man representing the temporal aspect of this same conciseness,

And considering that all fundamental forces contain their opposites, it stands to reason we are all part of god and god is a part of us. An inseparable relationship one giving the other its contextual meaning.

 

 

 

The creativity we see forming is the result of a force emanating from the singularity [ Were all things are known and formed ]

This is the universal duality that are separated by the event horizon, the information that exist beyond the event horizon can not be known outside of it.

This duality is what keeps the universe perpetually moving in this creative circular motion around the eternal..

 

So I walk on the uplands unbound ,

 

And know that there is hope

 

For that which Thou didst mold out of dust

 

To have consort with things eternal.

 

--- The dead sea scolls

 

Information is composed of order; this order collapses around a preexisting possibility of order.

 

As Pythagoras said “eternal true forms” these eternal true forms exist as inherent inevitabilities…. A singularity……..A basin of attraction.

A zero point.

 

The driving force of life are dualities, up down, right left, positive negative, past and future.

These dualities create currents between one another to create movement. All these

dualities can be traced to one source, a singularity. A finality

 

Cognition, is a exponential flow of information within a biological system around the dual singularities of birth and death, in the context of human awareness this can be thought of as existential angst.

 

The main driving force’s in one's life is between the known and the unknown. The archetypal current of all human uncertainty is between life and death.

 

Hamlet ; , act III, William Shakespeare

 

"But that the dread of something after death, the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns, puzzles the will, and makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all, and thus the native hue of resolution is sicklied over with a pale cast of thought, and enterprises of great pitch and moment with this regard their currents tury awry and lose the name of action."

 

When Shakespeare writes “ the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns ” he is referring to the event horizon that surrounds the singularity of death, an unknown that cannot be known without a prior irreversible acquiescence. This is what makes Hamlet such a classical story.

 

Hamlet was driven by the need to resolve his fathers death. The pain he experienced in his “to be are not to be” speech is the embodiment of this existential angst generated between the uncertainty of the past and future. The known and unknown.

 

This tension is the crux of the play, and embodies this pull of the singularity. This ever present tension he was feeling between resolving past events with the future.

“Something's rotten in the state of Denmark” The same force that was moving creating emotional tension in Hamlet, keeps the ones watching the play pressed into their seats to see the final outcome.....The singularity.....the end.