| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions 21:14 - Jul 22 with 2462 views | Davillin |
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions
This is a brief revisit to the discussion of "Time" elsewhere on PlanetSwans, with the addition of "matter" and the other "dimensions" both those defined in the scientific lexicon, and those not.
Two requests, please. 1) If you are quoting or paraphrasing anyone else in an article or elsewhere, please provide a citation [as I have, or have not]. 2) If you do not understand what someone has written, please do not comment on it except as a question. Listen, learn, and understand first.
I shall put aside a definition of "time" for now, except to say that it is generally classified as a "dimension" or "the fourth dimension."
The so-called "three dimensions" pertain to matter and are usually describe as length, width, and depth [sometimes other words are substituted, but the three I use will suffice). Other rarely-discussed attributes which may very easily be [or should be] classified as "dimensions" are volume, mass, and weight, again not considered here, except incidentally.
Matter as we know it at present, and here on earth, consists of solids, liquids, and gases, although there is enough latitude for seeming combinations of those three. I will stick with those three.
The most important first point is that none of those forms of matter have dimensions that are steady or permanent. Dimensions can, and regularly are, changed by changes in temperature or pressure. Chemical changes can also change dimensions, but I put those aside.
If you heat matter, it will expand. Solids can expand and remain solid, or expand to become liquid. They can also return to solid form. Liquids can move both to solid form and to gaseous form, and can move between them. Gases can be liquefied and sometimes frozen into a solid. Solids tend to expand by a lesser percentage than the others, and gases by a greater percentage.
The three "dimensions," then, are transitory and may be calculated and stated only in relation to a specimen's state at the time of measurement, although this is usually not stated.
Although the three dimensions of solids can be observed, are relatively fixed [as above], and can be calculated directly from the specimen matter itself, on the other hand liquids and gases cannot. The latter two assume dimensions calculable only from the container which holds them -- for a liquid, the bottle or the earth through which it flows, or sits motionless, for example, or by volume or weight.
The dimensions of a gas can be measured only from a suitable container which holds it, and then only if the gas it "pure," or not combined with another gas. [Gas is usually weighed or stated as volume, but those "dimensions" are not part of this discussion.] Once a gas escapes its container, it diffuses into the atmosphere [of any kind, not just "air"] and can no longer be measured for "dimensions."
As one may deduce, then, although the three dimensions of matter can remain constant under the right conditions, they are in fact impermanent and always subject to change.
On the molecular, atomic, or sub-atomic levels, the dimensions can be more stable, probably due to the almost infinitesimally small size. Further discussion would muddy the points, except to say that such "tampering" can lead to major catastrophic events, but similar in kind to such "tampering" with full-sized elements, especially gases.
Time enters the discussion because we can observe changes in matter, as well as apparent movement through space [micro-movement or macro], that appear to happen in sequence. It is that apparent movement in sequence that leads us to quantify it as "time" and call "time" a dimension.
A curious comparison can be made with "motion pictures." A sequence of still photographs ["frames"] on semi-transparent film are moved through a machine ["projector"] which stops each frame very briefly to have a light shine through it and "project" its image onto a screen. The effect on the screen is that the characters are moving in and through time, whereas they are not.
Something similar in concept happens with television and videotape, where, instead of full-sized frames being projected by light onto a screen, the images are stored electronically in horizontal strips which are divided into tiny segments. The "projector" then projects the "contents" of each tiny segment, strip by strip, onto the inside of a screen, at a rate of approximately 30 full screens every second [depending on the rules of different countries]. The characters are not moving. Nor are the pips of light. But the effect is that the characters are moving.
Time, then, is not matter. If it is a "dimension," it is so as a kind of measurement of changes or movement of matter in space, but is neither space itself nor a part of space, any more than length and width are matter itself or a part of matter.
Whereas we can say with considerable confidence that all matter has been somehow created in or by Nature by whatever name, we may also say with the same confidence that Time is a construct of mankind to explain the unexplainable by appearing to measuring it.
[The following is opinion: We don't know how or why things change or move in space, and, to be candid, don't even know how to find out, but we have given the events names and hope they are a suitable substitute for their reality.]
If we give something a name, we agree to consider it real. Perhaps, because of the nature of Mankind, we have to.
|  |
| |  |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 19:18 - Jul 23 with 726 views | Cottsy |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 18:59 - Jul 23 by Davillin |
Now tell me that you understand what you posted there.
Do you know what it means to "curve space"? How does space curve? Suppose space doesn't curve? Or does curve only in the imagination -- the prime source of the power -- of a theoretical physicist? Or suppose that curving space is just an optical illusion based on light curving. Because light can curve, you know.
Do you not understand that time is not itself "measurable," but that it is the means of measuring?
If you determine with a tape measure that a board is five feet long, did you measure the length of the board or did you measure the feet? Or did you measure the tape measure? Think about that. It's not nearly as complex as your post.
If you use a clock to determine that a bird sat on a fence for five minutes, did you measure how long the bird sat on a fence, or did you measure the minutes? Or did you measure the clock? Think about that.
Are you in over your head on this one? |
Well done Professor Davillin you have just disproven Einstein's theory of relativity.
Please go directly to Stockholm to collect your Nobel Prize.
FFS |  |
| If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? |
| |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 19:22 - Jul 23 with 750 views | exiledclaseboy |
Sheldon Cooper would have the lot of you wannabes on toast. |  |
| |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 19:25 - Jul 23 with 713 views | Cottsy |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 19:22 - Jul 23 by exiledclaseboy |
Sheldon Cooper would have the lot of you wannabes on toast. |
'Enry Cooper could have Davillin on toast at the moment. | |
| If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? |
| |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 19:30 - Jul 23 with 728 views | Davillin |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 19:22 - Jul 23 by exiledclaseboy |
Sheldon Cooper would have the lot of you wannabes on toast. |
I taught him everything he knows about theoretical physics.
I briefly considered teaching him about theoretical sex and the single girl, but gave it up before even suggesting it to hiim.
[By the way, he is a fictional character -- following a Wikipedia script, like most of the other posters on this thread (and others, by the way).]
Kind thought on your part, however, but no thanks. | |
| |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 19:33 - Jul 23 with 725 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 19:30 - Jul 23 by Davillin |
I taught him everything he knows about theoretical physics.
I briefly considered teaching him about theoretical sex and the single girl, but gave it up before even suggesting it to hiim.
[By the way, he is a fictional character -- following a Wikipedia script, like most of the other posters on this thread (and others, by the way).]
Kind thought on your part, however, but no thanks. |
Sheldon't not real?
F*ck me, now I've got to revisit my whole life and check what is real and what isn't. I only just finished doing it after I found out Doctor Who isn't a documentary. | |
| |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 19:38 - Jul 23 with 717 views | Davillin |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 19:33 - Jul 23 by exiledclaseboy |
Sheldon't not real?
F*ck me, now I've got to revisit my whole life and check what is real and what isn't. I only just finished doing it after I found out Doctor Who isn't a documentary. |
That kind of disappointment is rife among us older folk. You'll get used to it, fortunately. | |
| |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 19:47 - Jul 23 with 704 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 19:38 - Jul 23 by Davillin |
That kind of disappointment is rife among us older folk. You'll get used to it, fortunately. |
I'm 43 now. Surely life can't have many more disappointments in store for me? | |
| |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 19:49 - Jul 23 with 680 views | Cottsy |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 19:30 - Jul 23 by Davillin |
I taught him everything he knows about theoretical physics.
I briefly considered teaching him about theoretical sex and the single girl, but gave it up before even suggesting it to hiim.
[By the way, he is a fictional character -- following a Wikipedia script, like most of the other posters on this thread (and others, by the way).]
Kind thought on your part, however, but no thanks. |
The pomposity of this guy is unbelievable.
Not only does he know more than some of the greatest minds who have ever lived, accused the likes of Brian Cox of 'blowing bubbles' out of their mouth for daring to hold an opposing position to him with his greater understanding of the workings of the universe.
But he also accuses anyone who shares any information on a thread that are contrary to his beliefs of having got the information from Wikipedia whereas ol' Prof Dav has gained his higher knowledge of the wonders of cosmos after years of studying and performing countless experiments that were published extensively over the decades.
Oh no, he actually taught history for a bit and published feck all of any worth during his time in academia. | |
| If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 19:49 - Jul 23 with 703 views | Davillin |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 19:47 - Jul 23 by exiledclaseboy |
I'm 43 now. Surely life can't have many more disappointments in store for me? |
Oh, yes it can.
Sorry.
But they you already know that and are just jesting with me. | |
| |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 20:50 - Jul 23 with 666 views | Liam |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 18:43 - Jul 23 by Davillin |
I've avoided replying to some of the mock science on here, but I can't resist this one.
Boldly you proclaimed, "Wrong. Something can have volume and no mass." And to prove it, you refer to one [count'em, one] "type of subatomic particle they are looking for . . . that doesn't exist. Great!
And your premise is also silly because to have no mass would mean being nothing [no matter], and therefor no volume. To oversimplify, your concept is like having a glass of water with no water in it. |
Doesn't exist and not yet found are not the same thing. |  | | |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 23:01 - Jul 23 with 653 views | jacw |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 18:59 - Jul 23 by Davillin |
Now tell me that you understand what you posted there.
Do you know what it means to "curve space"? How does space curve? Suppose space doesn't curve? Or does curve only in the imagination -- the prime source of the power -- of a theoretical physicist? Or suppose that curving space is just an optical illusion based on light curving. Because light can curve, you know.
Do you not understand that time is not itself "measurable," but that it is the means of measuring?
If you determine with a tape measure that a board is five feet long, did you measure the length of the board or did you measure the feet? Or did you measure the tape measure? Think about that. It's not nearly as complex as your post.
If you use a clock to determine that a bird sat on a fence for five minutes, did you measure how long the bird sat on a fence, or did you measure the minutes? Or did you measure the clock? Think about that.
Are you in over your head on this one? |
According to old Newtonian theory time was separate from space and flat and unaffected by objects within space , and just a measurement as you have previously said. The theory of relativity tells us that time is wrapped around space creating spacetime , which shows that heavy objects within it warp the combined space and time. This spacetime was previously thought to be an empty vacuum and have no mass and only able to be measured by geometry. There is now a widely held belief that this is no longer the case and that spacetime has mass and is made up of 'dark matter' . Dark matter is calculated to be around 0.6 joules per km^3. Thus the km^3 would have the mass of 0.6/c^2 kg or 6.676E-15 g.
So - from that, 1g of spacetime has the volume of 149,790,293,588,975 km^3 - roughly 4 times the volume of our solar system (if we consider our solar system to be about 1 light year in diameter).
This is only theory and could well be " mock science " as you so dismissively put it , but hey oh there you go the world was flat 400 years ago.
Ps : you may want to take that old physics book back to the school library , it's out of date
 |  | | |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 23:44 - Jul 23 with 643 views | Davillin |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 23:01 - Jul 23 by jacw |
According to old Newtonian theory time was separate from space and flat and unaffected by objects within space , and just a measurement as you have previously said. The theory of relativity tells us that time is wrapped around space creating spacetime , which shows that heavy objects within it warp the combined space and time. This spacetime was previously thought to be an empty vacuum and have no mass and only able to be measured by geometry. There is now a widely held belief that this is no longer the case and that spacetime has mass and is made up of 'dark matter' . Dark matter is calculated to be around 0.6 joules per km^3. Thus the km^3 would have the mass of 0.6/c^2 kg or 6.676E-15 g.
So - from that, 1g of spacetime has the volume of 149,790,293,588,975 km^3 - roughly 4 times the volume of our solar system (if we consider our solar system to be about 1 light year in diameter).
This is only theory and could well be " mock science " as you so dismissively put it , but hey oh there you go the world was flat 400 years ago.
Ps : you may want to take that old physics book back to the school library , it's out of date
|
I don't own a single physics book. What I post is all within my own knowledge base built over spacetime longer than you've been alive -- unless I give a citation. You can take that to the bank.
You need to cite your sources -- Wikipedia? Google? P!sstaking.com?
There's no way on God's green earth that you could have remembered those numbers, just for starters. Stop giving someone else's arguments you don't understand. Just because someone said it's so doesn't make it so. .
Are you a devotée of the Theory of Relativity? Dross for the masses. Made up stuff. Unproveable imaginings. An "explanation" for something we do not understand, and some things that don't even exist.
You probably are devoted to Carl Sagan, too -- the once and future Clown Prince of The Land of Imaginary Science. I wouldn't be surprised if your post was taken from Sagan. It sounds exactly like his pompous bullsh!t.
Do you know that there are reputable scientists who question the "existence" of dark matter as postulated? | |
| |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 23:49 - Jul 23 with 643 views | Batterseajack |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 19:04 - Jul 23 by Davillin |
When they were finished, did they make bubbles with their fingers in their mouths, too?
And make odd grunting sounds?
Of course time "can't get any smaller." It isn't something with three dimensions, weight, mass, or volume. Now think about that very carefully, please, before replying. Thanks. |
Well if time doesn't exist you silly old fool, why has it been measured to pass slower where there is less gravity?
How can something (gravity in this case) have an impact on something that doesn't apparently exist? | | | |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 00:02 - Jul 24 with 637 views | Davillin |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 23:49 - Jul 23 by Batterseajack |
Well if time doesn't exist you silly old fool, why has it been measured to pass slower where there is less gravity?
How can something (gravity in this case) have an impact on something that doesn't apparently exist? |
First, calling me names does not serve any useful purpose related to an intelligent conversation. And if I'm a "silly old fool," what does that make you by comparison?
If you believe that time ". . . has been measured to pass slower where there is less gravity," you'll have to tell me what kind of clock or clocks were used to make that determination. Citation? Wikipedia? Google? Pisstake.com?
That challenge is a bit unfair because it doesn't really matter what kind of clocks were used -- atomic to hourglass. Have you considered that gravity will definitely affect the movement of the clock, and not time? One of the gross errors of this kind of study is confusing the timepiece with time.
Time is a measurement. If time appears to move more slowly in some situation, it's the measurement that's different, not time itself. [Post edited 24 Jul 2014 0:07]
| |
| |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 08:50 - Jul 24 with 613 views | DJack |
Dav you mentioned "Citation? Wikipedia? Google? Pisstake.com?" to a few posters But you allow yourself "What I post is all within my own knowledge base built over spacetime " Is no one who challenges you allowed the same then?
You have browbeaten posters who obviously have a background in science and when it may appear that they had to refer to something for exact figures you used that as an EXCUSE to discount them as they have obviously quoted from a source you consider to be a fantasist.
You stated "You probably are devoted to Carl Sagan, too -- the once and future Clown Prince of The Land of Imaginary Science. I wouldn't be surprised if your post was taken from Sagan. It sounds exactly like his pompous bullsh!t." Stand back read some of what you've written and think who else may have been pompous.
The only thing I will say on this topic is that a few years ago there was a programme on the BBC called "Everything and Nothing" and in it (i believe as my memory is poor) they pointed out that when astronomers used Newtons equations of motion the planets did not quite match up when they appeared. It was only when they factored in curved space did they match up...time and again(no pun intended).
I will add one other thing. Please consider this, Newton and Einstein are believed to be, by the overwhelming majority, amongst the greatest minds ever but you are quite content to debunk them, yet there is no statue of you anywhere. Perhaps, with good intentions, you are wrong.
Enjoy your day. |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 10:08 - Jul 24 with 590 views | Batterseajack |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 00:02 - Jul 24 by Davillin |
First, calling me names does not serve any useful purpose related to an intelligent conversation. And if I'm a "silly old fool," what does that make you by comparison?
If you believe that time ". . . has been measured to pass slower where there is less gravity," you'll have to tell me what kind of clock or clocks were used to make that determination. Citation? Wikipedia? Google? Pisstake.com?
That challenge is a bit unfair because it doesn't really matter what kind of clocks were used -- atomic to hourglass. Have you considered that gravity will definitely affect the movement of the clock, and not time? One of the gross errors of this kind of study is confusing the timepiece with time.
Time is a measurement. If time appears to move more slowly in some situation, it's the measurement that's different, not time itself. [Post edited 24 Jul 2014 0:07]
|
well you were being rude and arrogant to myself and other posters which warrants a bit of name calling from time to time. You even flippantly denounced the theories of relativity without any reasoning and admitting to not reading any physics books. To go further, you take the pi$$ out of us saying we got our info from bullsh!t.org and copying and pasting from wikipedia when all i can find online backing your claims is from nutjob conspiracy websites.
Now, I don't know the full details of how an atom clock works (and i have no doubt you'll exploit this if you respond) but it's based on atomic physics where the frequency of electrons is measured to determine time. Now at an atomic level, gravity is an extremely week force and I have my doubts that the slight difference in gravity on the earths surface and in an airplane will affect the resonance of electrons, unless you can prove otherwise.
What about the speed of light, speed = distance / time. The speed of light is fixed, which makes the other two variable. But the whole equation falls down if time doesn't exist, so does that mean light doesn't move?
I'll concede that there's still a lot to be found out about it, but no one is denying that, and the same goes for gravity. But i guess since we don't know what gravity is exactly at this moment in time, and can only measure it's effect, i guess that doesn't exist either.
This is an interesting podcast on the subject; http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/timc/all | | | |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 11:21 - Jul 24 with 558 views | Cottsy |
Davillin is the only person pompous enough to start a physics related thread and readily admit that he doesn't own any physics books yet asks that everyone else provides citations for whatever they post or dismiss it as coming from Wikipedia or bullsh!t.com (FFS).
"What I post is all within my own knowledge base built over spacetime longer than you've been alive" - If that's the criteria for knowing more than anyone else on a topic then I'm off to have a conversation with my grandfather about the reality of time, he's a few years older than Davillin and used to work as a bus driver and transport logistics manager so he dealt with time his whole life so he clearly knows more.
Davillin is willing to dismiss the theory of relativity, a 100 year old theory that has been repeatedly tested and observed by thousands of scientists in that time and is still seen as our best understanding of how the universe works,as 'Dross for the masses. Made up stuff. Unproveable imaginings.' This coming from a man who has admitted that his knowledge has come from hanging around on the planet for a little while but yet somehow his knowledge is greater, more valid than Nobel prize winner Albert Einstein.
You have to remember that there is an anti-science agenda that the political right in America have at the moment. They see modern science as a liberal-elitist area that is trying to make Americans pay more tax or making their children gay or some similar silly old bollox.
This anti-science movement is propagating its own pseudo-science that 'proves' that the earth is at most 10,000 years old, evolution doesn't happen, fossils can be explained by a global flood, there was an intelligent designer, climate change doesn't exist etc. etc
Look at how quickly Davillin lapped up the "science" from evolutionfacts.com on another thread or the rhetoric that he uses in other science based threads.
Hes a young earth creationist and he'll block you if you try to argue against him with real science. | |
| If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? |
| |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 15:37 - Jul 24 with 562 views | Davillin |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 08:50 - Jul 24 by DJack |
Dav you mentioned "Citation? Wikipedia? Google? Pisstake.com?" to a few posters But you allow yourself "What I post is all within my own knowledge base built over spacetime " Is no one who challenges you allowed the same then?
You have browbeaten posters who obviously have a background in science and when it may appear that they had to refer to something for exact figures you used that as an EXCUSE to discount them as they have obviously quoted from a source you consider to be a fantasist.
You stated "You probably are devoted to Carl Sagan, too -- the once and future Clown Prince of The Land of Imaginary Science. I wouldn't be surprised if your post was taken from Sagan. It sounds exactly like his pompous bullsh!t." Stand back read some of what you've written and think who else may have been pompous.
The only thing I will say on this topic is that a few years ago there was a programme on the BBC called "Everything and Nothing" and in it (i believe as my memory is poor) they pointed out that when astronomers used Newtons equations of motion the planets did not quite match up when they appeared. It was only when they factored in curved space did they match up...time and again(no pun intended).
I will add one other thing. Please consider this, Newton and Einstein are believed to be, by the overwhelming majority, amongst the greatest minds ever but you are quite content to debunk them, yet there is no statue of you anywhere. Perhaps, with good intentions, you are wrong.
Enjoy your day. |
Paragraph 1. If someone plagiarized something from a source, or misrepresnted what is in that source, you may challenge the source if you know it, but if he doesn't cite the source, you can't. If I give something from my own knowledge, you may challenge that directly. I once defined wisdom as the result of a process of experience, study, reflection, and synthesis. Reading and parroting the published works of others is a sign of neither intelligence nor knowledge.
Paragraph 2. If you believed the "exact" figures given in that thread, above, you're surprising me with a gullibility I would never have suspected from you. That stuff screams out for a citation to a credible source.
Paragraph 3. I guess you're accusing me of being as pompous as Carl Sagan. That's funny.
Paragraph 4. IF planets do not "quite match up" it's not because space curved, but because light does, as has been proven beyond doubt. [Well, at the risk of starting another silly controversy, the light doesn't curve, but is the result of the relative movements of the light source and the observer. Or other phenomena such as crystals, or curved glass, or droplets of water as in a rainbow.]
Paragraph 5. The statue has been ordered, the sculptor chosen, and the location decided. Patience.
p.s. I debunked only Carl Sagan, and then as a touch of humour. Not Newton. Others more knowledgable than i have questioned Einstein. I admit to having questioned some who have taken the theory of relativity too far. That happens in most scientific innovations. Coat-tail riders, mostly.
I sincerely thank you for your courteous post. [Post edited 24 Jul 2014 15:55]
| |
| |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 15:53 - Jul 24 with 554 views | Davillin |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 10:08 - Jul 24 by Batterseajack |
well you were being rude and arrogant to myself and other posters which warrants a bit of name calling from time to time. You even flippantly denounced the theories of relativity without any reasoning and admitting to not reading any physics books. To go further, you take the pi$$ out of us saying we got our info from bullsh!t.org and copying and pasting from wikipedia when all i can find online backing your claims is from nutjob conspiracy websites.
Now, I don't know the full details of how an atom clock works (and i have no doubt you'll exploit this if you respond) but it's based on atomic physics where the frequency of electrons is measured to determine time. Now at an atomic level, gravity is an extremely week force and I have my doubts that the slight difference in gravity on the earths surface and in an airplane will affect the resonance of electrons, unless you can prove otherwise.
What about the speed of light, speed = distance / time. The speed of light is fixed, which makes the other two variable. But the whole equation falls down if time doesn't exist, so does that mean light doesn't move?
I'll concede that there's still a lot to be found out about it, but no one is denying that, and the same goes for gravity. But i guess since we don't know what gravity is exactly at this moment in time, and can only measure it's effect, i guess that doesn't exist either.
This is an interesting podcast on the subject; http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/timc/all |
Try as I might, i just can't bring myself to respond to your post in any detail because it is too frequently too far from reality.
For example, I did not "admit to not reading any physics books," just to not owning any at this time.* I did not use any websites, let alone "conspiracy websites," let alone "nutjob conspiracy websites." Because we don't know how gravity works isn't the same as gravity not existing, or we being able to measure it. But then, gravity is not a form of measurement, either. The speed of light is indeed a measurement -- the result of a formula based on measurements -- but that does not make the speed of light exist as a thing.
I'll leave it at this: Time is a form of measurement, not a thing that exists. When you fully appreciate that, I think you can correct the rest of your post yourself.
_____
* And this. Posters who misunderstand what they read are one thing, and can be forgiven not censured, but posters who intentionally "misunderstand" or twist words or meanings in order to attack them are candidates for being censured AND blocked. You're on the edge. [Post edited 24 Jul 2014 15:56]
| |
| |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 18:32 - Jul 24 with 529 views | Batterseajack |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 15:53 - Jul 24 by Davillin |
Try as I might, i just can't bring myself to respond to your post in any detail because it is too frequently too far from reality.
For example, I did not "admit to not reading any physics books," just to not owning any at this time.* I did not use any websites, let alone "conspiracy websites," let alone "nutjob conspiracy websites." Because we don't know how gravity works isn't the same as gravity not existing, or we being able to measure it. But then, gravity is not a form of measurement, either. The speed of light is indeed a measurement -- the result of a formula based on measurements -- but that does not make the speed of light exist as a thing.
I'll leave it at this: Time is a form of measurement, not a thing that exists. When you fully appreciate that, I think you can correct the rest of your post yourself.
_____
* And this. Posters who misunderstand what they read are one thing, and can be forgiven not censured, but posters who intentionally "misunderstand" or twist words or meanings in order to attack them are candidates for being censured AND blocked. You're on the edge. [Post edited 24 Jul 2014 15:56]
|
After collecting your Nobel prize for revising the worlds current understanding of space-time, taking it back to just being called 'space', please remember to unblock me temporarily so that I can congratulate you. [Post edited 24 Jul 2014 18:36]
| | | |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 18:55 - Jul 24 with 519 views | Davillin |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 18:32 - Jul 24 by Batterseajack |
After collecting your Nobel prize for revising the worlds current understanding of space-time, taking it back to just being called 'space', please remember to unblock me temporarily so that I can congratulate you. [Post edited 24 Jul 2014 18:36]
|
[Rest assured. You're not blocked -- as long as you don't misrepresent what I post, or get discourteous, or use foul language.]
You're being presumptuous when you call it "the world's current understanding." It's a theory at best, as you recognize, to your credit, I suppose, when you call it an "understanding."
Quite often a large number of people who know nothing about a subject will all agree – and all be wrong. Gilbert Murray.
Q.E.D. | |
| |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 19:08 - Jul 24 with 515 views | MrSwerve |
The only thing that disappoints me about these threads is WarwickHunt not getting involved. |  |
| |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 15:28 - Jul 25 with 406 views | yescomeon |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 18:59 - Jul 23 by Davillin |
Now tell me that you understand what you posted there.
Do you know what it means to "curve space"? How does space curve? Suppose space doesn't curve? Or does curve only in the imagination -- the prime source of the power -- of a theoretical physicist? Or suppose that curving space is just an optical illusion based on light curving. Because light can curve, you know.
Do you not understand that time is not itself "measurable," but that it is the means of measuring?
If you determine with a tape measure that a board is five feet long, did you measure the length of the board or did you measure the feet? Or did you measure the tape measure? Think about that. It's not nearly as complex as your post.
If you use a clock to determine that a bird sat on a fence for five minutes, did you measure how long the bird sat on a fence, or did you measure the minutes? Or did you measure the clock? Think about that.
Are you in over your head on this one? |
The measurement of all things is done by the comparison of that objects to other objects of known dimensions. For example, the metre is defined as:
"The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a
time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second." [Taylor & Thompson, 2008, p18]
There are similar definitions of all other SI units in the same publication. I understand what you are trying to say. Measurements are somewhat arbitrary but that is why organisations such as NIST exist to ensure that all measurements are made using the same previously defined units so that all measurements that are made by different observers are comparable as they use units defined in the same way.
I agree with your comments about measuring time, and that time is not measurable, you simply measure the amount of seconds that pass between two events. Also the clock makes a difference, as speed at which the clock making the measurement is moving at.
Have you read "Biocentrism" by Robert Lanza? One of the most interesting books I have read for a long time, changed my perception of the universe for sure.
Taylor, B.N., & Thompson, A., (2008). "The International System of Units (SI)." Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, [Accessed 25/07/2014 via http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP330/sp330.pdf]. |  |
| |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 16:06 - Jul 25 with 395 views | Davillin |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 15:28 - Jul 25 by yescomeon |
The measurement of all things is done by the comparison of that objects to other objects of known dimensions. For example, the metre is defined as:
"The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a
time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second." [Taylor & Thompson, 2008, p18]
There are similar definitions of all other SI units in the same publication. I understand what you are trying to say. Measurements are somewhat arbitrary but that is why organisations such as NIST exist to ensure that all measurements are made using the same previously defined units so that all measurements that are made by different observers are comparable as they use units defined in the same way.
I agree with your comments about measuring time, and that time is not measurable, you simply measure the amount of seconds that pass between two events. Also the clock makes a difference, as speed at which the clock making the measurement is moving at.
Have you read "Biocentrism" by Robert Lanza? One of the most interesting books I have read for a long time, changed my perception of the universe for sure.
Taylor, B.N., & Thompson, A., (2008). "The International System of Units (SI)." Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, [Accessed 25/07/2014 via http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP330/sp330.pdf]. |
My deepest appreciation for your considered post, especially for including citations. What a relief.
I have not read Biocentrism, and am unlikely to do so, sorry. At 77 I don't have that much time left to read anything not already on my "Must Read Stack" as it is [I'm running out of space for it -- not a joke]. I'll definitely have a look at some of the reviews and make a new assessment.
Isn't it most illuminating to see that the definition of a meter requires the use of time as a measurement.
As with so many MANY things that we know -- or think we know -- about our universe, I find that particular time interval beyond comprehension. The fact that your link does not work didn't help, but I was able to flounder around until I found an equivalent.. Thanks. | |
| |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 16:15 - Jul 25 with 394 views | Davillin |
| Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 16:06 - Jul 25 by Davillin |
My deepest appreciation for your considered post, especially for including citations. What a relief.
I have not read Biocentrism, and am unlikely to do so, sorry. At 77 I don't have that much time left to read anything not already on my "Must Read Stack" as it is [I'm running out of space for it -- not a joke]. I'll definitely have a look at some of the reviews and make a new assessment.
Isn't it most illuminating to see that the definition of a meter requires the use of time as a measurement.
As with so many MANY things that we know -- or think we know -- about our universe, I find that particular time interval beyond comprehension. The fact that your link does not work didn't help, but I was able to flounder around until I found an equivalent.. Thanks. |
O.K., I had a look at some reviews and ordered it online.
To be candid [first pass] I will put it on the stack but cannot be assured that I'll make it that far.
To be candid [second pass] I'm not at all certain that I'll agree with everything in it, as presented in the reviews, but that's never stopped me before from reading something that will or might enlighten.
Thanks again. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
