BMWSportTouring BMWST DB
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
#967228 - 08/02/16 11:23 PM Re: Relativity [Re: Smoky]  
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,041
elkroeger Offline
Member
elkroeger  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,041
Rochester WA
Originally Posted By: Smoky
Dave, if you get suited up, and get your bike ready for a long ride, and leave just as the sun is coming up, perhaps tomorrow morning. If you beat the traffic, and get out of town on some good riding roads, in a few hours, the answers to this, and other mysteries will come to you.

Enjoy the ride...


Corollary #1 to the ride - enlightenment theory is that unlike relativity, the faster you go, the faster enlightenment occurs.

And yes, the man in the woods is wrong. The sooner you accept it, the sooner you will achieve peace in your home. 😀


I'm a man, and I can change, if I have to, I guess.

Eric
#969685 - 09/02/16 03:10 PM Re: Relativity [Re: Dave McReynolds]  
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 9,692
Killer Offline
Member
Killer  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 9,692
Wayne County, Utah, USA
I have long held that time is not a dimension at all, but not having the brainpower to support this beyond the "I say so" stage haven't made any progress beyond that hunch. I'm not alone in this thought, there are many able physicists that suspect the same thing and books have been written about it.

So, if time is in fact a series of discrete 'states of the universe' the answer to your question about a 'moment in time' would be yes, the universe was in one state at one 'time'.

Today I discovered that my thoughts have actually been published as a scientific paper (though they were thought by much cleverer people than me). It's just a hypothesis, nobody is claiming absolute truth here yet so let's not get into that aspect of it.

Interesting article in layman's terms with a link to the paper

http://futurism.com/is-time-really-a-cry...-with-new-idea/

Last edited by Killer; 09/02/16 03:11 PM.
#969773 - 09/04/16 03:27 AM Re: Relativity [Re: Dave McReynolds]  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,857
Dave McReynolds Offline
Member
Dave McReynolds  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,857
Sacramento, CA
Interesting. So what is proposed is that time is a series of discrete still images, like a movie. However, in a movie, it is possible to measure the gap between the still images by a concept that we call "time." If time IS the still images, then what is the gap between them?


Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. ~Einstein
#969775 - 09/04/16 04:12 AM Re: Relativity [Re: Dave McReynolds]  
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,842
mbelectric Offline
Member
mbelectric  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,842
SF Bay Area, CA, USA
Originally Posted By: Dave McReynolds
Interesting. So what is proposed is that time is a series of discrete still images, like a movie. However, in a movie, it is possible to measure the gap between the still images by a concept that we call "time." If time IS the still images, then what is the gap between them?


24 frames/second

MB>


74 R90S
98 K1200RS
03 1150RT
04 DRZ400
15 1200RTW

......and a Jeep Rubicon

BMWMOA, ABC.
IBEW 332
#969803 - 09/04/16 02:28 PM Re: Relativity [Re: Dave McReynolds]  
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 9,692
Killer Offline
Member
Killer  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 9,692
Wayne County, Utah, USA
Originally Posted By: Dave McReynolds
Interesting. So what is proposed is that time is a series of discrete still images, like a movie. However, in a movie, it is possible to measure the gap between the still images by a concept that we call "time." If time IS the still images, then what is the gap between them?


Well, that is another mind bending question. This paper proposes that the shortest time possible is considerably longer than previously theorized which was the Planck time (the time light takes to travel the shortest quantized distance). I don't think they were specific about the measurement but I haven't read the whole paper (don't understand it). The current proposed quanta of time is about 10 to the -43 seconds, or pretty short! However, we must understand that seconds are a human invented measurement of time, there really isn't any time in between the states in the time crystal, what we call time is a count of the number of states that have passed between any two or more states we can observe.

I no longer trust the kitchen timer...

#969813 - 09/04/16 05:31 PM Re: Relativity [Re: Killer]  
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,272
Endobobdds Offline
Member
Endobobdds  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,272
Washington, DC
Originally Posted By: Killer
I no longer trust the kitchen timer...



Killer's conclusion is the "bottom line" and something I actually understand after reading this post! grin


Bob Smyth
K1200RS ('02 Black)
email: endobobdds@gmail.com
#969867 - 09/05/16 05:31 AM Re: Relativity [Re: Dave McReynolds]  
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,041
elkroeger Offline
Member
elkroeger  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,041
Rochester WA
A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never quite sure.


I'm a man, and I can change, if I have to, I guess.

Eric
#970093 - 09/08/16 12:47 AM Re: Relativity [Re: elkroeger]  
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,144
flars Offline
Member
flars  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,144
Tampa Florida, USA
Time only exists so everything doesn't happen all at once.


2002 R1150RT
1998 R1100RS
Dover,FL
#970924 - 09/16/16 08:03 PM Re: Relativity [Re: Dave McReynolds]  
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,401
doc47 Offline
Member
doc47  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,401
Kafountine, Senegal
Originally Posted By: Dave McReynolds
I suppose you could force the issue, couldn't you? Let's say the age of the universe, measured from earth, was 13 billion, 800 million years, 3 hours, and 35 seconds at the instant I started typing this post. Couldn't you define that instant as occurring at the same time anywhere else in the universe, when the age of the universe measured at that place was that same exact number? Even if it is impossible to measure the age of the universe that precisely, as a concept, it should be possible to define an instant as being the same at any two points in the universe when the age of the universe, as measured at each of the two points, is the same. How would relativity deal with my concept?

No. Because there is no way to measure or even observe that instant. The instant isn't the same at those other place/times.
It's sort of like being in a fun house where the mirrors change shape constantly. Which is the "real" reflection?
The Simultaneity thing is hard to analogize. What Rex R posted about needing to be able to understand the math concepts is right on. It simply isn't accessible to us reg'lar people.


I knew I'd end up disillusioned. I just thought it would be better than this.

#970926 - 09/16/16 08:40 PM Re: Relativity [Re: doc47]  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,857
Dave McReynolds Offline
Member
Dave McReynolds  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,857
Sacramento, CA
Originally Posted By: doc47
Originally Posted By: Dave McReynolds
I suppose you could force the issue, couldn't you? Let's say the age of the universe, measured from earth, was 13 billion, 800 million years, 3 hours, and 35 seconds at the instant I started typing this post. Couldn't you define that instant as occurring at the same time anywhere else in the universe, when the age of the universe measured at that place was that same exact number? Even if it is impossible to measure the age of the universe that precisely, as a concept, it should be possible to define an instant as being the same at any two points in the universe when the age of the universe, as measured at each of the two points, is the same. How would relativity deal with my concept?

No. Because there is no way to measure or even observe that instant. The instant isn't the same at those other place/times.
It's sort of like being in a fun house where the mirrors change shape constantly. Which is the "real" reflection?
The Simultaneity thing is hard to analogize. What Rex R posted about needing to be able to understand the math concepts is right on. It simply isn't accessible to us reg'lar people.


Aside from the difficulty (or impossibility) of measuring the age of the universe precisely, its age has been estimated to be around 13 billion years. Are you saying that the universe has no definite age at any given point in space? In other words, could two observers standing next to each other measure the age of the universe, and each come up with different answers, and both be correct? If that is so, does the estimate of 13 billion years have any validity?

Last edited by Dave McReynolds; 09/16/16 08:54 PM.

Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. ~Einstein
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.019s Queries: 15 (0.003s) Memory: 2.8090 MB (Peak: 2.9967 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-12-15 19:53:57 UTC