Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The oscillation is translated to produce Physicists' objective definition of time, aka: the measure of a change in a physical quantity or a magnitude used to quantify the duration of events. (In simple terms: time is what a clock reads).The oscillation is the reference.
Cesium atoms are within soace.... and different atoms will be subject to different flows of time... removing it as an objective measureThe space in a cesium atom doesn't change.
Hopefully, we'd both agree that 'a second' is an objective measure of proper time in an observer's (local) inertial reference frame?Cesium atoms are within soace.... and different atoms will be subject to different flows of time... removing it as an objective measure
Certainly.Hopefully, we'd both agree that 'a second' is an objective measure of proper time in an observer's (local) inertial reference frame?
'An absolute sense'?Certainly.
But not objective in an absolute sense.
It still takes a movement for an observer to observe it.The oscillation is translated to produce Physicists' objective definition of time, aka: the measure of a change in a physical quantity or a magnitude used to quantify the duration of events. (In simple terms: time is what a clock reads).
Notice that objective definition is conceived by the mind of the Physicist there .. and it is still observer dependent.
That's totally wrongCesium atoms are within soace.... and different atoms will be subject to different flows of time... removing it as an objective measure
'An absolute sense'?
I thought you wanted to discuss the science?
How so?That's totally wrong
Ah .. so AIUI, you've changed your position from your post #30 above, such that there is apparently a frame of reference, (which includes an observer), which allows for objective time .. (which I now easily agree with).Measurements may be objective within a frame of reference... but that frame of reference is demonstrably not universal, so as far as the model supported by evidence an absolute or universal frame of reference does not exist.Shemjaza said:Time flows differently depending on relative velocity and gravity... there isn't an objective reference frame for time.
{... your post #30}
Pity that .. It would be more advantageous to be reminded of the science perspectives underpinning the discussion, as you can be more less assured of a conclusion leading towards further progress of practical value.Reminds me of Husserl's Phenomenology of Internal Time Consciousness'. and others who pondered the question.
...
Ah .. so AIUI, you've changed your position from your post #30 above, such that there is apparently a frame of reference, (which includes an observer), which allows for objective time .. (which I now easily agree with).
This raises the intriguing observation that you appear to accept various frames of reference having 'fluidity', yet you seem unwilling to treat 'objective' in the same way(?) Why is that(?), I find myself asking?
I mean; what/where is the evidence (and the test) that allows you to rule out subjective elements leading up to declaring something as being 'objective' or 'not objective'? The reason I ask this is, that it is a crucial question for science. I have my own answer, (given in my post#35), but that is subject to change with new evidence .. (my door is thus, now open).
I understand what you are saying and can see that's its fairly standard representation of Relativity. I'm not questioning the well established and well tested theory part of what you're saying there.shemjaza said:I don't mean to imply I've changed my mind, but the context of "objective" and "objective within a frame of reference" are different.
...
When we are discussing the flow of time that the flow of time is not universal is counter to any kind of intuition and the fact that methods may be objective within a frame of reference is a distraction and is often, incorrectly, used as a counter argument to the evidenced variation in time and space.
I think I've been convinced by how you've put this here.I understand what you are saying and can see that's its fairly standard representation of Relativity. I'm not questioning the well established and well tested theory part of what you're saying there.
What I'm having difficulty with is objectivity being held as an attribute of a given reference frame. I guess that all depends on one's definition of objectivity and how one arrives at that.
I view objectivity in science in a different way based on making the distinction of the dichotomy: objective vs. subjective. What is objective is simply the other side of the coin of what is subjective, so its all based on how the observer distinguishes themselves from the observation. That separation is at the heart of science, and as soon as one makes it, one sees what "objective" means in science.
So, an observer co-located with his instrument makes the same distinction between the subject (the scientist) and the object (clock observations) as another observer does, between the subject (themselves) and the distant object (eg: pulsar emission observations). This is objectivity in science and it isn't dependent on contextual differences between the respective frames.
Methodological observations are what make the separation between the subject (the scientist) and the object (the observations). As an illustrative example, some of the ancient Greeks trusted their own reasoning power, and distrusted observations as being based on frail senses, yet they could still reach a great degree of consensus about how the world "had to be". But they were not being objective, because they did not separate themselves from the object of their inquiry ... they were only learning about themselves, even if in a consensus way (ie: a 'standard' interpretation amongst themselves).
At the end of the day, neither of our respective definitions change the practical utility value of Relativity in any way, (eg: GPS corrections work). However I suspect there may well be circularity in your definition of objectivity(?)
So, out of interest, what definition are you using for 'objective'?
Goodness me! I don't think I've ever seen before that at CFs!I think I've been convinced by how you've put this here.
Yes .. co-ordinate systems are (re)assignable at will.I was treating "relative to frame of reference" as synonymous with "relative to subject".
I know there's an ongoing hunt for astronomical object pairings which might provide tests for possible violations of the Strong Equivalence Principle, (including time dilation effects), in different gravitational regimes (or reference frames). I don't think any violations have been found thus far but I think String Theory (ST) has been used to partially motivate finding such scenarios, (for what that's worth). In those instances, the product there is falsification investigations of Relativity .. which are always a useful exercise.I'll accept that something like the consistent oscillation of atoms is an objective metric... while still not demonstrating a universally consistent measure of time.
If the speed of time is infinite does that mean the speed of everything throughout time is also infinite?I wanted an accurate measurement of time. The conclusion that I have been led to has been very intriguing. So, I decided to share it.
Speed of time is infinite. You might be perplexed. How can that be. Wouldn't it result in all time just happening at once, thus reaching the end of time?
My main point that has led to me to this conclusion is the duration of time itself. Time it self cannot have a duration. Thus, mathematically, speed of time is infinite.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?