Logically Irrefutable: Time is Caused by Motion

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 6, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
To my understand everything is either space, matter, or motion.

I don't think that's a coherent division. Space is an aspect of spacetime, and motion isn't a 'thing' it's a contextual property of things.

The isotope is matter, its process of decay is motion. The isotope's motion is consistent allowing for it to be a good standard of motion.

As I already said, current understanding is that motion doesn't determine the elapsed time before radioactive decay; once you start redefining your terms to include what appear to be exceptions to your argument, you're in fallacy territory.

We use the isotope's movement to compare to the interval which I believe is a process of motion we can not yet detect. In this respect the isotope is like a clock because it is used to compare motion to its own motion.

You may believe that, but you don't know, and as best we can tell, it's not the case - that's why QM events are said to be random.

Yes, I am not talking about observing time dilation. I am talking about what causes time dilation.

Relative motion causes time dilation:

"Time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two clocks, either due to them having a velocity relative to each other, or by there being a gravitational potential difference between their locations" wikipedia

This is what I was trying to get at. I can explain time dilation without the need of space time distortion.

Imagine you are in the car and are moving fifty miles per hour. Let's say you move your hand to turn the air condition up. The movement of your hand requires a certain amount of energy. The amount of energy required to move your hand is more than if the car was not moving at all.

This is false (assuming you're not referring to air resistance). As I said previously, Lorentz invariance means that the laws pf physics are the same for you, moving uniformly relative to some observer, as they are for that observer. So once you stop accelerating, you will measure the same effort to move your hand as you did while sitting at the lights. But while you are accelerating away from the lights, you'll find it harder to move your hand, due to the acceleration.

This gets exaggerated to the point that if somehow you got your car to let's say half the speed of light the energy required to move your hand would be a lot more. Since the motion of your hand only happens with so much energy the motion of your hand has to slow down.

Nope- you seem to be confusing what you experience and what an observer in relative motion might observe.

I apologize, this appears to be incident of the one those "language barrier" things I was talking about in a previous post. The additive nature of movement you and I have been talking about shows that movement isn't diminished in anyway, but simply built upon. I guess it depends on how you define absolute. Here's the definition from google that is most like mine,

"not qualified or diminished in any way; total."

It's a question of how 'absolute' is used in the physics of space & time. In Newtonian physics, space and time are separate, and time is 'absolute', meaning it runs at the same rate everywhere, any moment in time is universal (e.g. a universal 'now'), and events that are simultaneous for one observer are simultaneous for every observer.

Einstein's special relativity showed that this is not the case in the real world.

From an observers point of view we are time dilated from our point of view we are not. Both are true, but who is right? We can't be both be time dilated and not time dilated. That is highly illogical. The answer is simple. We are time dilated its just that since we don't perceive it we do not notice it and therefore it is not a part of our point of view. Another way of saying it is, what we perceive as normal is relative to what level of time dilation we are currently affected by.

No. Both are right - an observer will obviously never see their proper time dilate - how could they? But one observer's clock really does run slow for another observer in relative motion (and vice-versa). That's why it's called relativity. It's not an illusion or a trick of the light, time is not absolute.

SelfSim · Sep 7, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
SelfSim said:

Time is a concept. Somehow our minds then forget that such concepts were created as a fundamental part of how our minds function.

Click to expand...

Hi, thank you for your input. Time is more than a concept. Time is something that is objective and can be observed. This is why in my original post I outlined the only way time can be observed. I believe the way in which something is observed is the way in which it exists.

Science uses a testable (operational) definition of time which makes it measurable .. but the notion of time is still a concept.
There is also no need to believe that: 'the way in which something is observed is the way in which it exists' .. because we have observations (from clocks) denoting the passage of time.

Ohj1n37 said:
SelfSim said:

The way we then take such a concept and make it 'exist in reality' is then also a fundamental function of our minds .. which, when one thinks about it, must also apply for everything we regard as 'reality' (or existing).

Click to expand...

I do not believe we will anything into reality.

.. and yet you say above that: 'Time is something that is objective and can be observed. I believe the way in which something is observed is the way in which it exists.'
So who/what is doing the observing, and doing: 'the way something is observed', if this doesn't come down to a function of our minds? (I said nothing about 'willing anything into reality').

Ohj1n37 · Sep 8, 2019

sjastro said:
With all due respect stop taking me out of context by trying to read your own opinions into the maths.

I would like to apologize if I have offended you in anyway. I have not purposely taken you out of context.

sjastro said:
I have explained to you why the meaning of the equation ΔEΔt ≥ h/4 has nothing to do with what you think it is.

To be clear what I have been saying is an analogy, it is not exactly the same, but a simplification that is similar. I will explain in a different way.

sjastro said:
Let me repeat; Δt does not represent a sampling time and ΔE is not statistical noise determined by Δt.
Both ΔE and Δt have distinctly different physical causes.
ΔE is the uncertainty for the photon’s energy due to variation in its frequency while Δt is the time taken for the quantum state to change as a result of the physical interaction with photons.

sjastro said:
Depending on Δt and v we can measure the photon energy dE over a number of cycles. If Δt is large dE is measured over a larger number of cycles, the average of dE (<dE>) comes closer to the true value resulting in a small ΔE value.

I have been calling this in previous posts, the conundrum of math. The first step is thinking of your florescent rock example as if it were happening right before you. Each photon pelts the rock with a variable amount of energy due to what its frequency was when it hits the rock.

The longer the rock's particles stay in an excited state the more information we can gather and therefore the more accurate the photon's energy variables will be compared to the true value (whatever that is, I couldn't find where you explained that).

You say the inverse is true, but this is a true case of correlation not causation unlike what my idea has been thought to be. The longer the rock's particles are excited the more data that can be collect therefore the closer to the true value. It might in math, but it doesn't work the other way around in real life. The closer to the true value does not cause the particles to stay excited for longer, it's the other way around.

This relationship can not logically be explained any other way. If you are able to explain this inverse relationship in another way (without math please) please let me know.

Also for future posts when it comes to math please phrase it with the new found knowledge that I have like zero education in math, along with a possible disorder relating to the comprehension of math. Math looks like hieroglyphics to me. Math terms are foreign to me. I am quite literally math illiterate. It was a nightmare deciphering your posts. Thank you for being considerate.

stevil said:
I like this post, thanks for sharing your ideas.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that greatly.

stevil said:
How can you have motion without time?

Why is time needed to move? Why can't things just move?

stevil said:
Motion is of course a relative notion, there is no such thing as a stationary point in Space, hence no such thing as absolute motion.

It depends on your definition of absolute. The fact that motion is additive, we are moving the Earth's speed right now, shows that motion is a total and can not be truly compartmentalized.

stevil said:
One of these requires motion, the other does not.

Gravity is a force of acceleration. We are constantly being accelerated to the center of the Earth right now, it's what keeps us from floating away.

stevil said:
Also according to Einstien's General Relativity we don't have Space without time. We should not consider space as being a three dimensional euclidean "thing". We only have SpaceTime which is curved. How can we have motion without SpaceTime?

I believe space time to be a mathematical construct and nothing more. It can produce accurate results, but that doesn't mean it actually exists, it is more akin to a graph or a chart.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
So once you stop accelerating, you will measure the same effort to move your hand as you did while sitting at the lights. But while you are accelerating away from the lights, you'll find it harder to move your hand, due to the acceleration.

Thank you for bringing this up. This is the type of stuff I like to discuss. Imagine you were to hold your fist out the window of a car going one hundred miles per hour and punch a stationary person. This scenario would not be pretty, but I try to use an extreme correctly to make a point. You are moving that one one hundred miles per hour all the time even when you are done accelerating. The guy you punched knows it and heck now your whole arm knows it lol.

The point is your base speed, the speed at which you are currently moving without yet performing further actions would be higher in the car traveling down the road than that if you were standing still. This means you are closer to the speed of light when moving. The closer you get to the speed of light, which is constant, the more energy it takes to move faster and as a result the more you slow down.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
No. Both are right - an observer will obviously never see their proper time dilate - how could they?

Ohj1n37 said:
We are time dilated its just that since we don't perceive it we do not notice it and therefore it is not a part of our point of view.

I think that is what I said lol.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
But one observer's clock really does run slow for another observer in relative motion (and vice-versa).

Kind of, one observer's motion would be viewed by the other as slow and the other observer's motion would would be viewed as fast to the other observer.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
It's not an illusion or a trick of the light, time is not absolute.

Time dilation is not an illusion or trick, you are right. Time as a total thing that can not be compartmentalized is a thing.

SelfSim said:
So who/what is doing the observing, and doing: 'the way something is observed', if this doesn't come down to a function of our minds?

I am unsure what you are meaning. It sounds like you are turning reality into something that is subjective. The thing is reality works according to rules and an efficient way for learning those rules is what we call science.

I apologize if I sound condescending. I am unsure what you mean and I struggle to give you an appropriate answer. I am very logical and can't quite understand your point.

stevil · Sep 8, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
Why is time needed to move? Why can't things just move?

The very definition of movement, requires time.

If my cat is sitting by the fireplace and time passes and my cat is still sitting by the fireplace, I might guess that my cat hasn't moved.

However, if my cat is sitting by the fireplace and time passes and is now not sitting by the fireplace, I cannot say that my cat hasn't moved, I have to conclude a moving cat.

Are you able to provide a scenario where by something can be claimed to have moved without any time passing?

stevil · Sep 9, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
Gravity is a force of acceleration. We are constantly being accelerated to the center of the Earth right now, it's what keeps us from floating away.

I see it as the opposite of this.
Given the curvature of SpaceTime in the presence of the Earth. A straight line would be from my current position eventually to the centre of the Earth (even if I am standing still). Assuming of course I am moving slower than terminal velocity with respect to the Earth.

I am however, not moving towards the centre of the Earth, and that is not because of Gravity, but instead because of the ground under my feet. The surface of the Earth is exerting a force on my feet and pushing me away from the centre of the Earth. F=ma so I am accelerating at about 9.8 m/s^2 with respect to SpaceTime, which means I maintain my position on the surface of the Earth, neither moving towards the center of the Earth, nor moving towards outer space, even though I have a constant force on my feet, forever accelerating me in the opposite direction of the Earth.

sjastro · Sep 9, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
I would like to apologize if I have offended you in anyway. I have not purposely taken you out of context.

No offence taken.

To be clear what I have been saying is an analogy, it is not exactly the same, but a simplification that is similar. I will explain in a different way.

Using my own analogy since you admit to not understanding the maths (which is refreshing honest) is equivalent to a communication in Nepalese or Mongolian (or whatever language you don't understand).
You are trying to guess a translation as much as you are guessing the meaning of
ΔEΔt ≥ h/4 or the parent equation ΔxΔp ≥ h/4.

In fact ΔxΔp ≥ h/4 is more relevant to your assertion time is caused by motion.
Δp is the uncertainty in momentum which relates to motion.
There is no time dependence as Δx is the uncertainty in position.

What these equations tell you, at quantum scales there is a limitation to the accuracy of measurements.

SelfSim · Sep 9, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
SelfSim said:

So who/what is doing the observing, and doing: 'the way something is observed', if this doesn't come down to a function of our minds?

Click to expand...

I am unsure what you are meaning. It sounds like you are turning reality into something that is subjective. The thing is reality works according to rules and an efficient way for learning those rules is what we call science.

Where do you think 'the rules' that 'reality works according to' come from then .. if it isn't science being done by human scientists?

SelfSim said:
I apologize if I sound condescending. I am unsure what you mean and I struggle to give you an appropriate answer. I am very logical and can't quite understand your point.

The 'reality' you keep pointing at, is defined by science's tests/results (you also said this previously). The thing you didn't mention is that science is a very human endeavour and its 'rules' are only rules for making sense of how the universe works ... for humans.
The scientific thinkers on this thread are trying to explain to you that science doesn't support motion causing time. Your logic should also lead you towards that same conclusion .. yet for some reason, it apparently doesn't ..(?) Why not?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 9, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
Why is time needed to move? Why can't things just move?

Because movement is a translation from one place to another, and no physical translation may occur faster than light speed; consequently, no physical translation can be instantaneous, therefore physical translations must take time.

... This means you are closer to the speed of light when moving. The closer you get to the speed of light, which is constant, the more energy it takes to move faster and as a result the more you slow down.

Again, movement is relative (hence 'relativity'). Your speed is always relative to some reference frame, so it only takes more energy as seen from that frame (see Constant Acceleration - a half myth). For example, if you and a companion set off in separate rockets from Earth and accelerate until you're both travelling at, say, half the speed of light relative to Earth; then your companion stops accelerating and coasts, while you continue accelerating until you reach half the speed of light relative to her; an observer back on Earth would see you moving at considerably more than half the speed of light, while your colleague would see you moving at half the speed of light.

You could continue accelerating at the same rate indefinitely with the same fuel consumption (assuming a magically replenishing fuel source), and you'd reach distant stars in the time you'd expect to take if the speed of light was no limit. But from the point of view of the companion you left behind and the distant observer on Earth, your acceleration would slow so that you never reached the speed of light relative to them. The apparent contradiction is due to the distortion of your spacetime relative to them - length is increasingly contracted in the direction of your travel (Lorentz contraction) and your time is increasingly dilated. See Space Travel using Constant Acceleration.

The surprising consequence is that at a constant 1g acceleration, you could traverse the known universe in a single lifetime without ever reaching the speed of light.

Kind of, one observer's motion would be viewed by the other as slow and the other observer's motion would would be viewed as fast to the other observer.

Nope - each would see the other's clock running slow.

Time as a total thing that can not be compartmentalized is a thing.

No offence intended, but this is gibberish.

It sounds like you are turning reality into something that is subjective.

Some aspects of reality, e.g. distance and time, are subjective in as much as they depend on your movement through spacetime.

Ohj1n37 · Sep 9, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
Why is time needed to move? Why can't things just move?

stevil said:
The very definition of movement, requires time.

My question was rhetorical to point this out. What you have said is motion requires time because motion requires time. This is circular logic and is a logical fallacy. You have not given an answer as to why motion requires time other than saying because everyone says so.

stevil said:
Are you able to provide a scenario where by something can be claimed to have moved without any time passing?

Have you given an example as to why time is needed for movement? I am telling you something doesn't exist that we think exists. How would I be able to give you an example of something that doesn't exist other than saying, things just move?

Ohj1n37 said:
Gravity is a force of acceleration. We are constantly being accelerated to the center of the Earth right now, it's what keeps us from floating away.

stevil said:
I see it as the opposite of this.

We can agree to disagree.

sjastro said:
Using my own analogy since you admit to not understanding the maths (which is refreshing honest) is equivalent to a communication in Nepalese or Mongolian (or whatever language you don't understand).

Ohj1n37 said:
Alright so, I was unable to follow the math as stated previously I have a disability concerning that. I also have no where near the training or education to hold a conversation in that area. If possible could you explain what you are talking about in a different way?

I had "admitted" this already it wasn't a secret as shown in the post I quoted, so I don't know why your accusing me of hiding anything. I am here to have an honest discussion not to act childish and try to make myself feel smarter than everyone.

I will leave this quote to you. I would be the six year old in this case and I have no shame in admitting I am horrible at math as previously stated.

“If You Can't Explain it to a Six Year Old, You Don't Understand it Yourself”

Ohj1n37 said:
You say the inverse is true, but this is a true case of correlation not causation unlike what my idea has been thought to be. The longer the rock's particles are excited the more data that can be collect therefore the closer to the true value. It might in math, but it doesn't work the other way around in real life. The closer to the true value does not cause the particles to stay excited for longer, it's the other way around.

This relationship can not logically be explained any other way. If you are able to explain this inverse relationship in another way (without math please) please let me know.

sjastro said:
What these equations tell you, at quantum scales there is a limitation to the accuracy of measurements.

So please if you would why is it the longer the rock stays in the excited stated the lower the energy uncertainty?

Why is there a limitation in the accuracy of the measurements?

Can you explain it other than saying because that is what the math says in some convoluted way.

Sorry if I was mean, but it appears that I am being falsely accused when I have been completely transparent about my motives. If you don't believe me go back and read my previous posts. Now it's your turn.

SelfSim said:
Where do you think 'the rules' that 'reality works according to' come from then .. if it isn't science being done by human scientists?

Scientist do not make the rules they discover them and figure out how they work. These rules are a fundamental of reality. Just because someone has a degree or training doesn't give them the capability to create rules, it is something to be discovered and understood.

SelfSim said:
The scientific thinkers on this thread are trying to explain to you that science doesn't support motion causing time. Your logic should also lead you towards that same conclusion .. yet for some reason, it apparently doesn't ..(?) Why not?

I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why motion requires time and why motion can't cause time, other than everyone says it doesn't make sense. I am not trying to rude. I am very sensible person, but I have yet to have someone actually answer anyone of my questions or address any of my points validly.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Because movement is a translation from one place to another, and no physical translation may occur faster than light speed; consequently, no physical translation can be instantaneous, therefore physical translations must take time.

I never said anything about the movement being instantaneous. I understand that is how the math works out. That view point is still under the assumption that time is required for something to move and is therefore an invalid point. Imagine things just moving. Because things move their motion can be compared. Because their motion can be compared the time variable exists.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Again, movement is relative (hence 'relativity'). Your speed is always relative to some reference frame, so it only takes more energy as seen from that frame (see Constant Acceleration - a half myth).

*Sigh*

From your link,

"A half-myth: It gets harder to push a ship faster as it gets closer to the speed of light

This is a half-myth because it depends on the frame of reference.

It is true for those watching from the planetary reference frame.

For those experiencing the journey (in the ship's reference frame) it is not true."

Please since you linked this, how can the energy required be one thing for the first, but a another thing for the second? This is rhetorical I have been answering it the entire time, but I want to see your definition in your own words since you were the one to link it.

Now let's see if you can answer my questions.

Is the speed of light constant meaning it is the same speed for everyone? Yes or no.

Is it true the faster something gets to the speed of light the more energy it requires accelerate? Yes or no.

Is it true that when you are in a moving car rather than being stationary you are closer to the speed of light? Yes or no.

Is it true that if you are moving in a car and you move that you are now even closer to the speed of light? Yes or no.

If answering yes to all the above would it not mean that regardless of accelerating if you are moving faster than you were before you are now closer to the speed of light and therefore require more energy to move? Yes or no.

Notice I added the yes or no. That is to make a point. It can not be both yes and no, it must be one or the other. If you would like to answer both yes and no on a single question please explain how something can both be true and false in your own words please.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Nope - each would see the other's clock running slow.

This is incorrect. The one effected by greater time dilation would be viewed by the other as slower while the other would be viewed by the first as faster. If they were to have the same time dilation both would view each other as normal.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
No offence intended, but this is gibberish.

No offense taken. I was pretty tired. What I meant was motion is not diminished in anyway. Let's see if you can answer this question.

Are we moving the speed of the Earth right now? Yes or no. Point proven.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Some aspects of reality, e.g. distance and time, are subjective in as much as they depend on your movement through spacetime.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
That's why it's called relativity. It's not an illusion or a trick of the light, time is not absolute.

Well it seems that is contradictory to what you have previously said. Time dilation is not subjective it's a real and a documented phenomenon that happens regardless of human perception.

I am not trying to be rude in anyway. I would like you to critically think about what I am saying instead of seemingly dismissing it immediately. This is why I have asked you such direct questions.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 9, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
Gravity is a force of acceleration. We are constantly being accelerated to the center of the Earth right now, it's what keeps us from floating away.

Strictly speaking, gravity is not the same thing as inertial acceleration but is equivalent to it and indistinguishable from it by an uninformed observer. This is known as the Equivalence Principle:

"we ... assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system." — Einstein, 1907

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 9, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
I never said anything about the movement being instantaneous. I understand that is how the math works out. That view point is still under the assumption that time is required for something to move and is therefore an invalid point. Imagine things just moving. Because things move their motion can be compared. Because their motion can be compared the time variable exists.

It's very simple - if some movement takes no time it must be instantaneous. This is not permitted. If it is not instantaneous, it takes time.

*Sigh*

From your link,

"A half-myth: It gets harder to push a ship faster as it gets closer to the speed of light

This is a half-myth because it depends on the frame of reference.

It is true for those watching from the planetary reference frame.

For those experiencing the journey (in the ship's reference frame) it is not true."

Please since you linked this, how can the energy required be one thing for the first, but a another thing for the second? This is rhetorical I have been answering it the entire time, but I want to see your definition in your own words since you were the one to link it.

*Sigh* (!) I already explained this. From the planetary reference frame, the ship's acceleration slows ever more as it approaches the speed of light, so if they know that the ship is using a constant thrust (amount of energy) to accelerate, it follows that they see that amount of energy producing less and less acceleration. In the ship's reference frame, the acceleration remains constant, as previously explained.

Is the speed of light constant meaning it is the same speed for everyone? Yes or no.

Yes.

Is it true the faster something gets to the speed of light the more energy it requires accelerate? Yes or no.

Yes, from the relevant frame of reference (see above).

Is it true that when you are in a moving car rather than being stationary you are closer to the speed of light? Yes or no.

Yes, relative to whatever you take as stationary.

Is it true that if you are moving in a car and you move that you are now even closer to the speed of light? Yes or no.

No - if you're in the car, you're moving at the speed of the car. However, if you're in a moving train, and you run down the train in the direction it's moving, you'll be moving at (slightly less than) the sum of the speed of the train relative to the tracks and your own speed relative to the train, so in this case you would be closer to the speed of light than the train, relative to the tracks.

If answering yes to all the above would it not mean that regardless of accelerating if you are moving faster than you were before you are now closer to the speed of light and therefore require more energy to move? Yes or no.

Yes, from the point of view of the observer you take to be stationary; no, from your own point of view - as explained in the linked article.

Notice I added the yes or no. That is to make a point. It can not be both yes and no, it must be one or the other. If you would like to answer both yes and no on a single question please explain how something can both be true and false in your own words please.

As I've been saying all along, it depends on your frame of reference. Two events that are simultaneous to you will not necessarily be simultaneous to someone moving relative to you. Which of you is correct? Both, in your own frames. Simultaneity is not absolute - because spacetime itself is not absolute. That's why it's called relativity.

If you really want to understand relativity, this is not the best place; I suggest you read an introductory text on Special Relativity for people with little or no maths or physics background, for example, Einstein's Special Relativity, Special Relativity Simplified, Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity Made Relatively Simple!, A Simplified Introduction to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and so-on.

This is incorrect. The one effected by greater time dilation would be viewed by the other as slower while the other would be viewed by the first as faster. If they were to have the same time dilation both would view each other as normal.

No. Observed time dilation depends on relative motion. Each sees the other moving away at the same speed, so each sees the other time dilated in the same way. The effect is not absolute, it is relative.

You can choose to reject special relativity in favour of your own intuition, but empirical evidence shows that you'd be wrong.

Are we moving the speed of the Earth right now? Yes or no. Point proven.

We are comoving with the Earth, i.e. we are in the same frame of reference, so yes, we're moving at the same speed as the Earth with respect to whatever frame of reference you wish to compare. What point? We're moving at a whole range of different speeds, depending on what you want to compare with.

Well it seems that is contradictory to what you have previously said. Time dilation is not subjective it's a real and a documented phenomenon that happens regardless of human perception.

Yep, it's independent of human perception, it only depends on relative motion. In physics hypotheticals, the viewpoint of some observer is generally used to make visualisation of the situation more intuitive. But you could use an autonomous spaceship as your observer, or even a rock, if you're happy with a rock being able to observe what's going on at a distance.

I am not trying to be rude in anyway. I would like you to critically think about what I am saying instead of seemingly dismissing it immediately. This is why I have asked you such direct questions.

I'm doing my best to correct your misapprehensions and explain the errors; if you're obviously wrong about something, it can be dismissed immediately.

Perhaps if you were to give the same critical thought to what I'm telling you, and follow up the references, instead of dismissing it immediately, you'd make more progress. If you ask for help with a topic you are confused about or don't fully understand, it is rude to tell the person who answers your questions that they are wrong - unless you can show that you understand the subject better than they do.

sjastro · Sep 9, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
I had "admitted" this already it wasn't a secret as shown in the post I quoted, so I don't know why your accusing me of hiding anything. I am here to have an honest discussion not to act childish and try to make myself feel smarter than everyone.

I will leave this quote to you. I would be the six year old in this case and I have no shame in admitting I am horrible at math as previously stated.

“If You Can't Explain it to a Six Year Old, You Don't Understand it Yourself”

You are being argumentative.
I have explained with examples how these equations work.
You either don’t understand the subject or refuse to as it contradicts your time is caused by motion.

So please if you would why is it the longer the rock stays in the excited stated the lower the energy uncertainty?

No it doesn’t.
As I have explained previously an excited (or unexcited state) is a particular quantum state.
Δt is the time taken for the evolution of the quantum state such as going from an excited to unexcited state or vice versa.
You are struggling to understand the relationship between time and energy uncertainty, hopefully this will simplify the matter.

Using the rock as an example, the electrons in the rock exist in discrete energy levels.
A photon is absorbed or emitted when electrons undergo transition from one energy level to another.
The difference in the energy levels equals the energy of the photon absorbed or emitted.
The quantum state goes from an initial state to a final state.
The energy of a photon is E = hv
The uncertainty is ΔE = hΔv = h/Δt
Since time is inversely proportional to frequency even a six year old with a basic understanding of maths will see that as Δt becomes smaller, ΔE becomes larger and vice versa.
Δt is also the time taken to go from an initial state to final state.

Why is there a limitation in the accuracy of the measurements?

Let’s look at the case of trying to find an electron with a microscope.
There are two criteria.
(1) Since electrons are small the wavelength of the photons the microscope uses must be small enough to accurately define the position of the electron.
(2) The electron must be reasonably stationary in the field of view of the microscope.

If one improves the accuracy by using shorter wavelengths, the momentum of the photon increases which in turn imparts momentum to the electron which increases its mobility.
No matter what you do, reducing the uncertainty in position increases the uncertainty in momentum or vice versa; results in a limitation of the measurement.

Ohj1n37 · Sep 9, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
I never said anything about the movement being instantaneous. I understand that is how the math works out. That view point is still under the assumption that time is required for something to move and is therefore an invalid point. Imagine things just moving. Because things move their motion can be compared. Because their motion can be compared the time variable exists.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
It's very simple - if some movement takes no time it must be instantaneous. This is not permitted. If it is not instantaneous, it takes time.

Why does something take time to move? Serious question and again it's rhetorical and I have answered it several times now.

Ohj1n37 said:
So please if you would why is it the longer the rock stays in the excited stated the lower the energy uncertainty?

sjastro said:
No it doesn’t.

sjastro said:
Δt is the time taken for the evolution of the quantum state such as going from an excited to unexcited

sjastro said:
statistical uncertainty in the energy of the incident photons defined as ΔE

sjastro said:
Since time is inversely proportional to frequency even a six year old with a basic understanding of maths will see that as Δt becomes smaller, ΔE becomes larger and vice versa.
Δt is also the time taken to go from an initial state to final state.

You literally disagreed with me then agreed with me and have still yet to answer the question.

This is exactly what I am talking about in the quote below. Read the quotes above especially the bold and underlined parts.

I think I realize you all can't understand what I am saying and this is going nowhere. Sorry I couldn't explain it well enough. Have a good one.

Ohj1n37 said:
I am not trying to be rude in anyway. I would like you to critically think about what I am saying instead of seemingly dismissing it immediately. This is why I have asked you such direct questions.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 9, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
Why does something take time to move? Serious question and again it's rhetorical and I have answered it several times now.

Because movement is a displacement in space over time.

sjastro · Sep 9, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
You literally disagreed with me then agreed with me and have still yet to answer the question.

This is exactly what I am talking about in the quote below. Read the quotes above especially the bold and underlined parts.

I think I realize you all can't understand what I am saying and this is going nowhere. Sorry I couldn't explain it well enough. Have a good one.

Cherry picking my quotes and putting your own interpretation on it particularly when you have admitted not understanding the maths and in particular statistical noise which your argument is based on, is not the same as statistical uncertainty of measurements in QM, is poor form.
Collectively we do understand and have pointed out your errors.

Given the title of your thread includes the word irrefutable when it has found to be very much refutable has led to this conflict.

SelfSim · Sep 10, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
Scientist do not make the rules they discover them and figure out how they work. These rules are a fundamental of reality.

And your evidence for this is ... what precisely?

Ohj1n37 said:
Just because someone has a degree or training doesn't give them the capability to create rules,

Training is about how to do science (and nothing more than that).

Ohj1n37 said:
.. it is something to be discovered and understood.

Not at all. I'm not saying we create rules .. I'm saying that Laws are what remains after the scientific method has produced its results and humans then make consistently verifiable conclusions. The notion that Laws are a 'discovery' is just some kind of belief you hold .. and nothing more than that. If you disagree, then demonstrate your test that laws exist independently from the minds distilling them .. and thence, the subsequent evidence for this.

Ohj1n37 said:
I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why motion requires time and why motion can't cause time, other than everyone says it doesn't make sense. I am not trying to rude. I am very sensible person, but I have yet to have someone actually answer anyone of my questions or address any of my points validly.

I'd suggest you're not actually looking at what folks are posting then ..

SelfSim · Sep 10, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Ohj1n37 said:

Well it seems that is contradictory to what you have previously said. Time dilation is not subjective it's a real and a documented phenomenon that happens regardless of human perception.

Click to expand...

Yep, it's independent of human perception, it only depends on relative motion. In physics hypotheticals, the viewpoint of some observer is generally used to make visualisation of the situation more intuitive. But you could use an autonomous spaceship as your observer, or even a rock, if you're happy with a rock being able to observe what's going on at a distance.

Nonsense .. who do you think is still doing the observing in such a hypothetical? Its a hypothetical for goodness sake! (I'm yet to see a rock describe its own hypothetical!)

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 10, 2019

SelfSim said:
Nonsense .. who do you think is still doing the observing in such a hypothetical? Its a hypothetical for goodness sake! (I'm yet to see a rock describe its own hypothetical!)

Duh! It's a hypothetical rock capable of making observations

Some people even like to take the hypothetical viewpoint of a photon...

[serious] · Sep 19, 2019

Ohj1n37 said:
Another example is given in the post above, radioactive decay. Radioactive decay to my understanding (may be wrong) is caused by the weak force and is an atom losing a proton or neutron, this again can be considered motion.

This would be incorrect. The weak force is in no way a form of kinetic energy, nor does nuclear decay change with temperature.

Ohj1n37 said:
Another thing that is perceived incorrectly is what my dad has dubbed the conundrum of math (currently the only person I can talk to that really understands me is my dad). The conundrum of math is an illusion that math creates and here is an example. I was talking to a person a lot smarter than me and the person states, "matter can not move unless it has velocity." I told him he was incorrect, "the matter has velocity because it is moving." For those of you reading take awhile to think about that, it is both hard, but simple to understand, an illusion of sorts.

I think this gets to the heart of my criticism of #6. Both you and the other person were speaking as if there were a causal relationship. Velocity is movement, and movement is velocity (to be pedantic, I should say movement in a direction).

Imagine I'm wearing a blue shirt. Is the color of my shirt caused by it being blue, or is it being blue caused by its color? Neither. It's a blue shirt. Its color is blue and blue is its color.

Ohj1n37 said:
The same can be said about time because when something is moving it's movement can be compared allowing for both the perception and measurement of time. Remember my definition of time is motion compared to a standard of motion or comparative motion.

Motion is by definition comparitive. There is no "standard" reference frame.

If anyone would like me to I can explain how time dilation works without the need of spacetime and why it is seamless with time defined as comparative motion.

By all means, feel free to explain your theory on this.

EDIT: Let me propose a thought experiment. Let's say we have two lumps of some radioactive element. One we toss in an oven, the other we dunk in liquid nitrogen. Now the oven radioactive lump is 5 times the temperature, so has more motion. Which should decay faster under your theory, the one experiencing more motion, or the one experiencing less?

Sorn · Oct 21, 2019

Kylie said:
Imagine a universe where there is no movement at all. Time must not exist. Can anything move in this universe? No, since there is no time, and movement requires time. Thus, if everything stops moving, time stops, and nothing can start it up again. Do you believe this?

Imagine a universe where there is no movement at all. Time must not exist.
-agree, ie time (or more correctly duration) cannot be measured by any reference inside that universe.

Can anything move in this universe? No, since there is no time, and movement requires time.
- disagree, movement does not require time, movement requires energy (initially) and space. Movement then has a property called duration.

Thus, if everything stops moving, time stops, and nothing can start it up again.
- disagree, an input of energy from a source external to the universe can start it (movement, activity) up again

Logically Irrefutable: Time is Caused by Motion

Well-Known Member

A non "-ist"

Active Member

Godless and without morals

Godless and without morals

Newbie

A non "-ist"

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

A non "-ist"

A non "-ist"

Well-Known Member

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Well-Known Member

Similar threads