- May 17, 2014
- 5,638
- 1,547
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
You simply cannot have them without time, as cause has to precede effect (which is a temporal relationship).
Upvote
0
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.
True, because you cannot have cause and effect without space and matter.
I am using the term annihilate to refer to a nihilistic tendency. To take way the meaning form something, to make it nothing, to nullify it. Its a brut fact of experience that there is a temporal flow. After all, it seems we all know what is being discussed when we talk about temporal flow. Don't we?I am sorry for the double post, but I did not address GrowingSmaller's latest post in the thread.
Most of what your post seems to be is opinion, so I will agree to disagree.
I believe that when it comes to our understanding of God's creation, the universe around us, it is logical that the foundation of said understanding should be based on what can be observed.
I do not understand what you are talking about when you refer to, "a flow of events being annihilated." Although this does reminds me of Stephen King's fiction, The Langoliers. The idea that I am trying to convey destroys nothing; it is just that time never existed in the first place.
You simply cannot have them without time, as cause has to precede effect (which is a temporal relationship).
You seem to be replying to this part of post:Light contains particles,that are subject to gravity.
Gravity is the source of energy, not the light.
If you had pure light void of any particulate, it could appear curved due to a reflective mass.
However you get some things wrong.Einstein had no variables or statistics to work with but used mathematics to derive a theoretical value for gravitational bending of light that could tested for by measuring the angular displacement of the position of stars near the Sun’s limb.
...
E = mc² doesn’t mean that at all.
Time dilation is a measurement.
No clock = no measurement of elapsed time and no time dilation.
This is time dilation which is that "time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two observers". Thus time dilation is a measurement of a difference in the elapsed time by the observers.No, time dilation is a phenomenon which can be detected by a measurement.
You missed out that radioactive decay rates are measured using clocks and as I wrote : No clock = no measurement of elapsed time and no time dilation.Not true, actually. We can take a lump of radioactive material, and move it rapidly. Time dilation means that the radioactive decay slows down.
Thus time dilation is a measurement of a difference in the elapsed time by the observers.
You missed out that radioactive decay rates are measured using clocks and as I wrote : No clock = no measurement of elapsed time and no time dilation.
'Then all you have is 2 counts. All you know is that the counts are different. Is it experimental error? Is there an unknown law of physics changing the counts? Was there an invisible block of lead blocking the radiation during one runAll I need is two lumps of radioactive material: one moving and one not. Then I count the number of Geiger-counter beeps coming from each.
The measurement of the flux of muons at the Earth's surface produced an early dilemma because many more are detected than would be expected, based on their short half-life of 1.56 microseconds. This is a good example of the application of relativistic time dilation to explain the increased particle range for high-speed particles.
I do not wish to debate, but only want to discuss with anyone who may know more than me on the existence of time from a physics perspective. To my understanding time as a force of nature does not exist. Matter moves, this movement causes change, and we humans perceive this change as the passage of time. Change requires nothing other than movement; there is no need for time. The phenomenon known as time dilation to my understanding is just the slowing of change not time. That's how time can be relative because it's not time that is being slowed by gravity or acceleration, but change. Does anyone have any insight on this matter?
What you are describing is close to the Muon Experiment (replace the lumps with muons).
You seem to be replying to this part of post:
However you get some things wrong.
Light is photons which have no mass and are so are not subject to Newtonian gravity. What GR states is that mass and energy and pressure bends spacetime and massless photons will follow that curved path. GR makes predictions for that bending and we measured that bending. The correct sentence would be "Light is photons whose paths are subject to the gravity of masses".
There is no "light is the source of energy" in that post. In the energy mass equivalence equation E = mc², c is the constant speed of light, not light itself. The "source" of the energy is the variable mass m. Note that it is equally valid to consider the "source" of the mass m to be the energy E.
The last sentence is incoherent, now faith, because it has no meaning in physics. "Pure" is redundant because light is always just light. Light without photons ("particulates") is not light. There are no masses reflecting light in the gravitational bending of light ("reflective mass"). Even "appear curved" is doubtful because the paths of light are actually curved by masses. Light goes straight when the Sun is not near its path and is bent when the Sun
Unquote:
My point was that relativity is based on the effect of gravity on mass and energy.
My mistake was trying to explain gravitational lensing.
I find this post enlightening because it puts in perspective why your initial post was incoherent and gibberish and the need to now employ an exit strategy when all I requested was to make your post clearer so a response could be formulated.
The initial post was nonsense to start with as there was no science content and was motivated by flaming.
Since my request was impossible to comply with, your exit strategy involves the very ad-hominem fallacy you accuse me of.
If I wanted a psychological profile done I’ll take it up with my sister who is a practising psychologist thank you very much, the comments from an armchair expert with a chip on their shoulder has no clinical value.
Your trollish behaviour is as subtle as a sledgehammer.Are you her motivation?
I am trying to ignore you but I understand how much that bothers you.
So let's try to be civil and Christian like and not engage each other any more ok?
No reply needed nor will I reply to any more of your statements.
In discussions on time dilation the issue on whether time dilation is only an observer dependant measurement or a real physical effect
You have misunderstood my post as it is based around your misconception that time dilation is the result of radioactive decay slowing down.I'm not sure what makes you think that the muons reaching the earth's surface aren't "real," and I take issue with that word "only."
From the frame of reference of the muons, of course, the oncoming earth is travelling at 0.98c, and this produces a length contraction which makes the earth's atmosphere thin enough to travel through, given the time constraints of half-life.
The muon's frame of reference is no more or less real than the earth's frame of reference. Both descriptions explain what is indeed a real effect: that muons do actually reach the earth's surface.
If this was true then half life is not an invariant under the Lorentz transformations but depends on the velocity of the observer.Not true, actually. We can take a lump of radioactive material, and move it rapidly. Time dilation means that the radioactive decay slows down.
Your post is an example why this is the case; the higher number of mesons reaching Earth is due to length contraction in its frame of reference
It is not equivalent to the explanation for the reasons I have given.And I'm saying that's equivalent to the explanation (from the Earth's frame of reference) that time slows down for the muons.
But I don't care to continue the conversation; you've been rather aggressive throughout the thread.
You are still wrong. People do not count the clicks of the radiation detector for a millisecond at the top of the mountain and count for a day at the bottom of the mountain or vice versaWell-spotted. Yes, I was (in my second-last sentence). And no clocks are needed for that, just counts at different distances.
Why did Rossi and Hall measure fluxes rather than counts over different/random/whatever you think lengths of time?The historical experiment upon which the model muon experiment is based was performed by Rossi and Hall in 1941. They measured the flux of muons at a location on Mt Washington in New Hampshire at about 2000 m altitude and also at the base of the mountain. They found the ratio of the muon flux was 1.4, whereas the ratio should have been about 22 even if the muons were traveling at the speed of light, using the muon half-life of 1.56 microseconds. When the time dilation relationship was applied, the result could be explained if the muons were traveling at 0.994 c.
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?