|
Post by Elizabeth on Jan 19, 2019 6:01:24 GMT
...or is it just renewed? Or what?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Feb 11, 2019 19:27:10 GMT
Time is an approximation of a unified state of being through multiple infinities, where each phenomena as an extension of "The One" reflects "The One" through an inherent multiplicity of "images" in which unity is "veiled" by an inherent "void". The "veil of void", or the "chasm" of unknowing referred to my mystics or the "dark matter" of physicists, effectively is observed by an inherent multiplicity of phenomena where "void" cannot be seen in and of itself (as it is nothing), but rather through a sheer multiplicity of phenomena folding into and out of reality.
Time, as finiteness, is fundamentally rooted in a multiplicity of images or "logical atoms" where we can observe an inherent boundary of "unity" within an image/atom of reality (abstract or empirical), but upon further inspection through "time" this boundary is subject to a simultaneous entropy/negentropy, as "individuation", into further boundaries.
The act of "localizing" any phenonomena, through deductivity/inductivity/abductivity, effectively is an act of creating further time where the phenomena as existing in time (as the relation of one part to another) is observes through further times zones.
Take for example the observation of a horse moving from Point A to Point B. We observe the horse fundamentally because of its movement, but this movement is observed because of a framework of "progression", that is the framework of point A and point B where its movements originate.
Upon closer inspection the horse can be observed as composed of simple hair, muscle fibers, blood vessel, nerves and reproducing cells. These phenomena in turn exist as boundaries of movement sharing this same linear form/function in not just just appear but the fact thier movements always requires a movement from point A to point B. I may observe a hair, sway back and forth through time, but the framework always observes some portion of the hair (top, middle, bottom or any other point) going back and forth between point A and point B.
Reversibility I may watch the horse move from Point A to Point B, but if I observe the framework in which the horse is moving I also am observing the framework existing within a timezone similar to not only what defines the horse but what the horse is composed of. The horse, defined by its movement across a bridge, observes not just the bridge moving up/down or left/right at a much lower rate of movement but the actual ground in which the bridge is connected moving forwards/backwards, up/down and/or left/right...all of which observes a basic movement in each context from a Point A to Point B.
So what we understand of time, not only observes a replication of a base linear format of movement from Point A to Point B (where each point is respectively an origin of movement), but fundamentally timezones within time zones where the framework exists as a constant boundary of movement composed of various infinite grades of movement. Movement, under such terms as evidenced by the basic Point A/B dichotomy (which is universally present regardless of the framework as the framework recursively manifesting itself everywhere, fundamentally is dualistic in nature.
This dualistic, or 2 dimensional, foundation to "time as finiteness" observes a basic phenomena of "convergence/divergence" where one phenomena (lets say the horse mention above) exists as a perpetual gradation of the points A/B. Where the movement of the horse originates from Point A (and Point B simultaneously considering its movement is determined if and only if there is a potential destination for which it is too move) the phenomena itself (the horse again) is point A of the framework effectively existing through various grades as it moves to point B through the horse.
The third element of time, depth in this case, is a perpetual state of change.
This dualism observes a perpetual change by gradation conducive to synthesis as convergence/divergence. For example the particle may be defined by the dichotomy of points A/B through which it moves, but the particle in moving from point A to point B is effectively existing in multiple states by the movement of the particle itself. The particle at point A1 is not the same as the particle at point A2 but exists as a boundary of movement, or "quality of infinite grades", existing as a continuum of movement; hence the particles is a boundary of movement itself where points A and B are:
a) Converging: in the respect A1 to A2 observes the space between A1 and A2 effectively existing as "1", with "A1 and A2" existing as points A and B effectively joining through the continuum or "quality" of the particle itself. Point A and B exist through a convergence of the phenomena itself where Point A and Point B move towards a state of unity by the phenomena itself.
b) Divergence: in the respect A1 seperates from A2 when the particle exists as A2 and A3. Points A and B are simultaneously "diverging" in these respects by the "quality" of the particle itself. Keep in mind this "quality" is strictly a boundary of gradation. Hence Point A and B hence as an "active state" of sythesis where these points, as fix/passive/stable, are frameworks of movement.
c) Movement fundamentally is multiplicity as finiteness. Infinity is a pure movement that is synonymous to no movement except when observed relative to another infinity, thus necessitating "time" as "finiteness/muliplicity" grounded in a law of Relativity.
Hence the horse exists as a boundary of "movements".
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Feb 24, 2019 20:55:02 GMT
karlWhen you say that for the twins paradox that there would be no paradox, then you go against the grain of the details of the very example offered which clearly offers different times. Also, the spacecraft to Andromeda returns to find the earth millions of years into the future. Either the times all agree, or they do not. The 'classic'interpretation is simply that they do not. Acceleration is not part of the Lorentz formula at all, and only velocity effects the rate of time in their theory. Of course we need acceleration to acquire velocity. But it is methodologically better to simply express matters in terms of "greater" > or less than "<", before inserting real numerical info. This way the logic is "a priori" to the math. This is always the first step in programming. In the computer language, the acceleration is handled implicitly. By that I mean as simple changes in the velocity per unit of time. There is never a need for an actual acceleration calculation. I would like to encourage you to take the leap into computer programming, because tensors are much easier to handle from the vantage point of the computer language. A "for-next loop" (or any other such function) has the radical advantage of doing all the arithmetic for you this way. The difference between a 2-body-problem and a problem with 3 or more bodies simply requires something like: 'let x=3'. I will be publishing my computer code for the solution to n-body Newtonian gravity later this year. Hopefully that will encourage you into the process. It is good to have a clear goal like this in learning a computer language. I am using my algorithm to measure against the solar system, the various theories on gravity. What is slowing me down is that, the NASA ephemeris which gives us approximations for planetary measurements is currently going through some hiccups in their data. Their older data was reconciled with Newtonian gravity very closely. Although they used statistical processes which were clumsy from a math perspective, but the results were mostly very good - at least as regards positioning. Their velocity vectors have always been notoriously bad. Though very few people use them, so those errors of theirs are seldom noticed. Their current data is appallingly off, giving the Earth's aphelion and perihelion errors of 3% for a 100 years ago. But the older data had agreement with my algorithm of better than just 1 day in 250 years (0.01%). I was in the process of refining that more closely when their data went bananas. I hope they go back to their older process, so I can complete the current chapter of my thesis sooner. ;-j
|
|
|
Post by karl on Feb 24, 2019 21:48:18 GMT
karl When you say that for the twins paradox that there would be no paradox, then you go against the grain of the details of the very example offered which clearly offers different times. Also, the spacecraft to Andromeda returns to find the earth millions of years into the future. Either the times all agree, or they do not. The 'classic'interpretation is simply that they do not. Acceleration is not part of the Lorentz formula at all, and only velocity effects the rate of time in their theory. Of course we need acceleration to acquire velocity. But it is methodologically better to simply express matters in terms of "greater" > or less than "<", before inserting real numerical info. This way the logic is "a priori" to the math. This is always the first step in programming. In the computer language, the acceleration is handled implicitly. By that I mean as simple changes in the velocity per unit of time. There is never a need for an actual acceleration calculation. I would like to encourage you to take the leap into computer programming, because tensors are much easier to handle from the vantage point of the computer language. A "for-next loop" (or any other such function) has the radical advantage of doing all the arithmetic for you this way. The difference between a 2-body-problem and a problem with 3 or more bodies simply requires something like: 'let x=3'. I will be publishing my computer code for the solution to n-body Newtonian gravity later this year. Hopefully that will encourage you into the process. It is good to have a clear goal like this in learning a computer language. I am using my algorithm to measure against the solar system, the various theories on gravity. What is slowing me down is that, the NASA ephemeris which gives us approximations for planetary measurements is currently going through some hiccups in their data. Their older data was reconciled with Newtonian gravity very closely. Although they used statistical processes which were clumsy from a math perspective, but the results were mostly very good - at least as regards positioning. Their velocity vectors have always been notoriously bad. Though very few people use them, so those errors of theirs are seldom noticed. Their current data is appallingly off, giving the Earth's aphelion and perihelion errors of 3% for a 100 years ago. But the older data had agreement with my algorithm of better than just 1 day in 250 years (0.01%). I was in the process of refining that more closely when their data went bananas. I hope they go back to their older process, so I can complete the current chapter of my thesis sooner. ;-j
The formula for a relativistic acceleration field is directly deduced from the formulas of the Lorentz transformation, which is a fairly simple calculation which doesn't take many steps. For smaller distances, you end up with time dilation expressed by the formula AH/Csq (A=acceleration, H: distance (in the direction of the acceleration), C: Speed of light, sq=squared.) By changing A with G, where G is the gravitational strength, we can use the same formula, for short distances, to calculate time dilation in a gravtional field. For larger distances in an acceleration field, you'd have to go through more steps of calculation to arrive at a more complicated formula, using the Euler number. For gravitaitonal fields, it becomes even more complicated, since they're not uniform, like an acceleration field. And if you add rotation, you'd have to calculate in the effect of frame dragging as well.
If the example you give is about a spaceship traveing to the Andromeda galaxy near the speed of light, slows down, and then accelerate towards the Earth near the speed of light, then, yes, as it comes back to Earth, much more time will have passed on Earth and on the spaceship. From the Earth's reference frame, time will slow down on the spaceship as it moves away, and increasingly so until it reaches its top speed. Then time on the spaceship will start to move faster, again, in relation to the Earth, as it slows down. Then, as it accelerates towards the Earth, the clock on the spaceship will slow down again.
From the spaceship's reference frame, the Earths clock will slow down as the spaceship accelerates away from it, and continue to tick slowly, in relation to the spaceship, as the spaceship has reached its top speed. However, when the spaceship de-accelerates, the clocks on Earth will start to speed up immensly, and this can be seen from the formula, where time dilation increases with distance. As it stops accelerating, the clocks on Earth starts to tick more slowly than those on the spaceship, but it all adds up mathematically, and when the spaceship reaches the Earth, those on the spaceship and those on Earth, will both agree that the clock on Earth shows much less time than the clock on the spaceship. So, it's only a seeming paradoc, and doesn't end up in an actual logical contradiction.
I have for a long time wanted to learn computer programming, but right now my focus is on tensor analysis. -And that is set to take a very long time. Understanding the in and outs of special relativty and relativistic acceleration fields is a walk in the park compared the mathematics of finding geodesics, especially when the object moving is large enough to curve spacetime itself. Then comes the matter of understanding the different solutions to Einstein's field equations, from black holes to cosmic strings and wormholes.
|
|
|
Post by serenelynonchalant on Feb 28, 2019 21:05:07 GMT
isnt time only confirmed when measured?can anyone declare,and be not the fool,that no scenarios exclusive to measurement are possible?short and sweet.if you elaborate,ill also.....
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Feb 28, 2019 21:18:46 GMT
isnt time only confirmed when measured?can anyone declare,and be not the fool,that no scenarios exclusive to measurement are possible?short and sweet.if you elaborate,ill also..... Are you saying it doesn't exist unless it's measured?
|
|
|
Post by karl on Feb 28, 2019 22:39:56 GMT
isnt time only confirmed when measured?can anyone declare,and be not the fool,that no scenarios exclusive to measurement are possible?short and sweet.if you elaborate,ill also.....
Your conscious experience is the experience of free will. To exercise will is to cause change, one way or another, and change requires time. So, loosely speaking, by being conscious you "measure" time continuously. Now, could time exist if there were no consciousness to experience it? I don't know. But it certainly wouldn't depend on human consciousness. And even before this universe had time to develop any conscious lifeforms, maybe there was a God to consciously experience it.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Feb 28, 2019 22:40:58 GMT
isnt time only confirmed when measured?can anyone declare,and be not the fool,that no scenarios exclusive to measurement are possible?short and sweet.if you elaborate,ill also..... Are you saying it doesn't exist unless it's measured?
I think you got that right.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 1, 2019 14:03:59 GMT
I'll try to answer the question in the next section called "Mind Experiments of Time"
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 4, 2019 18:00:29 GMT
karl When you say that for the twins paradox that there would be no paradox, then you go against the grain of the details of the very example offered which clearly offers different times. Also, the spacecraft to Andromeda returns to find the earth millions of years into the future. Either the times all agree, or they do not. The 'classic'interpretation is simply that they do not. Acceleration is not part of the Lorentz formula at all, and only velocity effects the rate of time in their theory. Of course we need acceleration to acquire velocity. But it is methodologically better to simply express matters in terms of "greater" > or less than "<", before inserting real numerical info. This way the logic is "a priori" to the math. This is always the first step in programming. In the computer language, the acceleration is handled implicitly. By that I mean as simple changes in the velocity per unit of time. There is never a need for an actual acceleration calculation. I would like to encourage you to take the leap into computer programming, because tensors are much easier to handle from the vantage point of the computer language. A "for-next loop" (or any other such function) has the radical advantage of doing all the arithmetic for you this way. The difference between a 2-body-problem and a problem with 3 or more bodies simply requires something like: 'let x=3'. I will be publishing my computer code for the solution to n-body Newtonian gravity later this year. Hopefully that will encourage you into the process. It is good to have a clear goal like this in learning a computer language. I am using my algorithm to measure against the solar system, the various theories on gravity. What is slowing me down is that, the NASA ephemeris which gives us approximations for planetary measurements is currently going through some hiccups in their data. Their older data was reconciled with Newtonian gravity very closely. Although they used statistical processes which were clumsy from a math perspective, but the results were mostly very good - at least as regards positioning. Their velocity vectors have always been notoriously bad. Though very few people use them, so those errors of theirs are seldom noticed. Their current data is appallingly off, giving the Earth's aphelion and perihelion errors of 3% for a 100 years ago. But the older data had agreement with my algorithm of better than just 1 day in 250 years (0.01%). I was in the process of refining that more closely when their data went bananas. I hope they go back to their older process, so I can complete the current chapter of my thesis sooner. ;-j
The formula for a relativistic acceleration field is directly deduced from the formulas of the Lorentz transformation, which is a fairly simple calculation which doesn't take many steps. For smaller distances, you end up with time dilation expressed by the formula AH/Csq (A=acceleration, H: distance (in the direction of the acceleration), C: Speed of light, sq=squared.) By changing A with G, where G is the gravitational strength, we can use the same formula, for short distances, to calculate time dilation in a gravtional field. For larger distances in an acceleration field, you'd have to go through more steps of calculation to arrive at a more complicated formula, using the Euler number. For gravitaitonal fields, it becomes even more complicated, since they're not uniform, like an acceleration field. And if you add rotation, you'd have to calculate in the effect of frame dragging as well.
If the example you give is about a spaceship traveing to the Andromeda galaxy near the speed of light, slows down, and then accelerate towards the Earth near the speed of light, then, yes, as it comes back to Earth, much more time will have passed on Earth and on the spaceship. From the Earth's reference frame, time will slow down on the spaceship as it moves away, and increasingly so until it reaches its top speed. Then time on the spaceship will start to move faster, again, in relation to the Earth, as it slows down. Then, as it accelerates towards the Earth, the clock on the spaceship will slow down again.
From the spaceship's reference frame, the Earths clock will slow down as the spaceship accelerates away from it, and continue to tick slowly, in relation to the spaceship, as the spaceship has reached its top speed. However, when the spaceship de-accelerates, the clocks on Earth will start to speed up immensly, and this can be seen from the formula, where time dilation increases with distance. As it stops accelerating, the clocks on Earth starts to tick more slowly than those on the spaceship, but it all adds up mathematically, and when the spaceship reaches the Earth, those on the spaceship and those on Earth, will both agree that the clock on Earth shows much less time than the clock on the spaceship. So, it's only a seeming paradoc, and doesn't end up in an actual logical contradiction.
I have for a long time wanted to learn computer programming, but right now my focus is on tensor analysis. -And that is set to take a very long time. Understanding the in and outs of special relativty and relativistic acceleration fields is a walk in the park compared the mathematics of finding geodesics, especially when the object moving is large enough to curve spacetime itself. Then comes the matter of understanding the different solutions to Einstein's field equations, from black holes to cosmic strings and wormholes.
I do not see how you reconcile the idea of clocks showing different times when they meet up. Clearly if the clocks show different times, then we are left asking the question as before to the pilot of spaceship B: "From your perspective, you should be dead." What type of response do you think you will get? If the relativist equations are valid, then the only answer forthcoming would be something like this: "Well I am only dead from my relative perspective, whereas you are only aware of your own relative perspective, and thus you must be the center of your own universe. My mind is thus not the center of its universe, from your perspective." You may think that avoiding computer programming is achieving something in your understanding of matters. But it is reminiscent of philosophers who refuse to deal with questions of physics or logic at all. They are content with sophistic 'explanations'. I am also reminded of priests who do not take seriously astronomy and cosmology. In the days of yore, there were those 'learned' fellows who saw no need to bother with all the complexity in writing and reading words as they could speak and remember quite clearly...
|
|
|
Post by karl on Mar 4, 2019 18:54:07 GMT
The formula for a relativistic acceleration field is directly deduced from the formulas of the Lorentz transformation, which is a fairly simple calculation which doesn't take many steps. For smaller distances, you end up with time dilation expressed by the formula AH/Csq (A=acceleration, H: distance (in the direction of the acceleration), C: Speed of light, sq=squared.) By changing A with G, where G is the gravitational strength, we can use the same formula, for short distances, to calculate time dilation in a gravtional field. For larger distances in an acceleration field, you'd have to go through more steps of calculation to arrive at a more complicated formula, using the Euler number. For gravitaitonal fields, it becomes even more complicated, since they're not uniform, like an acceleration field. And if you add rotation, you'd have to calculate in the effect of frame dragging as well.
If the example you give is about a spaceship traveing to the Andromeda galaxy near the speed of light, slows down, and then accelerate towards the Earth near the speed of light, then, yes, as it comes back to Earth, much more time will have passed on Earth and on the spaceship. From the Earth's reference frame, time will slow down on the spaceship as it moves away, and increasingly so until it reaches its top speed. Then time on the spaceship will start to move faster, again, in relation to the Earth, as it slows down. Then, as it accelerates towards the Earth, the clock on the spaceship will slow down again.
From the spaceship's reference frame, the Earths clock will slow down as the spaceship accelerates away from it, and continue to tick slowly, in relation to the spaceship, as the spaceship has reached its top speed. However, when the spaceship de-accelerates, the clocks on Earth will start to speed up immensly, and this can be seen from the formula, where time dilation increases with distance. As it stops accelerating, the clocks on Earth starts to tick more slowly than those on the spaceship, but it all adds up mathematically, and when the spaceship reaches the Earth, those on the spaceship and those on Earth, will both agree that the clock on Earth shows much less time than the clock on the spaceship. So, it's only a seeming paradoc, and doesn't end up in an actual logical contradiction.
I have for a long time wanted to learn computer programming, but right now my focus is on tensor analysis. -And that is set to take a very long time. Understanding the in and outs of special relativty and relativistic acceleration fields is a walk in the park compared the mathematics of finding geodesics, especially when the object moving is large enough to curve spacetime itself. Then comes the matter of understanding the different solutions to Einstein's field equations, from black holes to cosmic strings and wormholes.
I do not see how you reconcile the idea of clocks showing different times when they meet up. Clearly if the clocks show different times, then we are left asking the question as before to the pilot of spaceship B: "From your perspective, you should be dead." What type of response do you think you will get? If the relativist equations are valid, then the only answer forthcoming would be something like this: "Well I am only dead from my relative perspective, whereas you are only aware of your own relative perspective, and thus you must be the center of your own universe. My mind is thus not the center of its universe, from your perspective." You may think that avoiding computer programming is achieving something in your understanding of matters. But it is reminiscent of philosophers who refuse to deal with questions of physics or logic at all. They are content with sophistic 'explanations'. I am also reminded of priests who do not take seriously astronomy and cosmology. In the days of yore, there were those 'learned' fellows who saw no need to bother with all the complexity in writing and reading words as they could speak and remember quite clearly...
There is full agreement between all observers on what each of their clock shows once they meet each other to compare. If a twin travels close to the speed of light and comes back after 20 years, but, for example, 100 years has passed for his brother, there is no disagreement between him and anyone on Earth left alive, that his brother has died of old age. It's only when they are separate by distance that what happens at the same time from the viewpoint of one of them, doesn't necessarily happen at the same time from the viewpoint of the other. This is why the special relativity theory doesn't violate causality. However, with general relativity you could end up with contradictions. This doesn't apply for either high speeds, relativistic acceleration fields, or uniform gravitational fields. But if you have a rotating massive object, you get something called frame dragging, which means the reference frame is being dragged along with the rotation. This can lead to contradictions, as it, seemigly, allows for traveling back in time. Then we're talking about a real paradoxes and a violation of causality. So the relativity theory does have a problem, and Kurt Gödel demonstrated that traveling back in time would be made possible simply by the universe being in a state of rotation. So he kept asking astronomers whether there were any sign of that the universe was in a state of rotation. This is an unresolved issue, and indicates to me that the relativity theory is an incomplete theory. One suggested "solution" to this problem is that if you travel back in time, you don't travel back in this, but a parallel universe. This is a rather big assumption to make, and not one I care much for.
Once you've fully understood the mathematics of a theory, computers are invaluable for simulations. No human, no matter how well he/she has understood the relativity theory, could do the calculations needed for Nasa's latest simulation of two black holes rotating against each other. Not because it would be principally impssoble to do it without a computer, but because it would take a ridiculous amount of time. The same applies to any theory in physics. That Isaac Newton developed a theory that could be used to accurately predict what happens with balls moving on a billiard ball table, wouldn't allow him to know what exactly would happen if you have a huge table with a thousand balls, all at different speeds bumping into each other. He could theoretically have done the calculations, but it would have taken way too much time. So such simulations didn't become possible before the computer age.
|
|