Time in deep space

[dad]

Whatever do you mean by 'universe'. What are its properties?

That is a common term commonly used term in education and science. I generally use it loosley to refer to the observable firmament, stars etc.

Why? What's your true purpose?

Truth and freedom from diabolical lies.

What do you mean by 'see' and 'IN time'? Clarify because no-one knows what you're on about ..

I mean we know time exists here on earth and area (fishbowl). So when we see light or anything else at all it is here. Here in that area, and therefore IN the space and time we live in!

 

[98cwitr]

mod hat on

A few OT posts have been cleaned up from the thread. Please stay on the topic of the OP!

mod hat off

 

[Kylie]

Since all light from stars is seen only here near earth and IN our time and space, this does not tell us about what time may be like out here. Determining distances depends on knowing that time does exist all across this universe the same as it does here. So unless we can know time does exist we cannot know distances in cosmology.

Parallax also involves time because if take a slice of this solar system maybe hundreds of millions of miles across, where we know time exists, it cannot be considered ONLY space. It includes time. So this cannot be used as a trigonometric measure in a triangle to the stars .

Yet everyday I see distances offered as fact.

example:

"
Telescope have found an unexpected thin disk of material furiously whirling around a supermassive black hole at the heart of the magnificent spiral galaxy NGC 3147, located 130 million light-years away.

The conundrum is that the disk shouldn't be there, based on current astronomical theories."

Hubble uncovers black hole that shouldn't exist

discuss

Distant objects change, change must happen over time. Therefore, time operates at the distant objects.

And parallax does not involve time, otherwise surveyors would need to take it into account when measuring angles. They do not. This has been pointed out to you.

You do not seem to understand what you are talking about.

 

[SelfSim]

Distant objects change, change must happen over time. Therefore, time operates at the distant objects.

A circular argument here methinks (ie: a small nit-pick, really).

Distance is independent of time.
Therefore changing what you said might result in:
"Objects change, change must happen over time. Therefore, time operates over objects."

 

[Kylie]

A circular argument here methinks (ie: a small nit-pick, really).

Distance is independent of time.
Therefore changing what you said might result in:
"Objects change, change must happen over time. Therefore, time operates over objects."

More like:

"Anything that changes must experience time. Distant objects change. Therefore, distant objects experience time."

 

[SelfSim]

More like:

"Anything that changes must experience time.

I don't think we can say that a rock 'experiences' time, unless its a human observing that rock change.
(We don't know what a rock does, or doesn't 'experience' if we're not there either by way of thoughts, hypotheses, theories, direct observations, mind experiments, fantasies, etc. All of the latter are human concepts).

Distant objects change. Therefore, distant objects experience time."

I don't think the 'distance' word in that statement contributes anything to that statement though. Any object which is observed, (which by definition, includes our recording of the passage of time), can then be inferred as having experienced time, but that wouldn't have happened if the human sense of time hadn't accompanied the observation(s) of that object.

 

[Kylie]

I don't think we can say that a rock 'experiences' time, unless its a human observing that rock change.
(We don't know what a rock does, or doesn't 'experience' if we're not there either by way of thoughts, hypotheses, theories, direct observations, mind experiments, fantasies, etc. All of the latter are human concepts).

I don't think this logic is valid. Anything that changes requires time, but that doesn't mean that time requires change. It's like saying that all cats are mammals, but it doesn't follow that all mammals are cats.

I don't think the 'distance' word in that statement contributes anything to that statement though. Any object which is observed, (which by definition, includes our recording of the passage of time), can then be inferred as having experienced time, but that wouldn't have happened if the human sense of time hadn't accompanied the observation(s) of that object.

Don't get what you're saying.

By distant, I mean simply not in our local area. So things like other galaxies, etc.

And I'm not saying we can infer time because we can observe them, I'm saying we can infer time because we can observe them changing. And change requires time. Specifically, a change means that the object is different between two different points in time. If you look at it at Time A and then look again at Time B, then something has changed. If Time A and Time B were the same point, then we would not be able to see any change.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't think this logic is valid. Anything that changes requires time, but that doesn't mean that time requires change. It's like saying that all cats are mammals, but it doesn't follow that all mammals are cats.

Ahh .. I see .. so you view the observation of changes in something as requiring the concept time, but the concept of time doesn't require the observation of change.

The problem here is that:

Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads.

.. ie: the measurement of time (what a clock reads) is an observation .. and so is 'change' because it also requires an observation (of what changed).
We have two observations, so how do you distinguish between them in order to account for the difference you imply in your above analogy where cats are a subset of mammals? (Ie: what is it about time that somehow makes it more than change? I agree that I can find other mammals that aren't cats).

Don't get what you're saying.

By distant, I mean simply not in our local area. So things like other galaxies, etc.

Yep .. Let's remember that it was dad who disputed the equality of time at two distantly separated locations .. I hope we can both see that was his misconception (..and not ours)?

And I'm not saying we can infer time because we can observe them,

I am. Its not by inference though .. its by definition.

I'm saying we can infer time because we can observe them changing. And change requires time.

And I think that's circular logic when we don't have some other way of distinguishing between change and time that I can see, other than by some other observation. Once such a distinction turns up (perhaps in this discussion), the circularity might disappear though(?)

Specifically, a change means that the object is different between two different points in time. If you look at it at Time A and then look again at Time B, then something has changed. If Time A and Time B were the same point, then we would not be able to see any change.

I note the underlined words involve observations .. Ie: observations of:
(i) the object and;
(ii) observations of the clock which tells us time A and Time B.

 

[Kylie]

Ahh .. I see .. so you view the observation of changes in something as requiring the concept time, but the concept of time doesn't require the observation of change.

The problem here is that:
.. ie: the measurement of time (what a clock reads) is an observation .. and so is 'change' because it also requires an observation (of what changed).
We have two observations, so how do you distinguish between them in order to account for the difference you imply in your above analogy where cats are a subset of mammals? (Ie: what is it about time that somehow makes it more than change? I agree that I can find other mammals that aren't cats).

Bear in mind that change is how we perceive the flow of time, it doesn't follow that it is time itself. Time could still be passing even if there is no change that we can see.

Yep .. Let's remember that it was dad who disputed the equality of time at two distantly separated locations .. I hope we can both see that was his misconception (..and not ours)?

Of course, I disagree with dad's interpretation completely.

I'm just pointing out that if we can see something changing, then that thing must be experiencing time.

I am. Its not by inference though .. its by definition. And I think that's circular logic when we don't have some other way of distinguishing between change and time that I can see, other than by some other observation. Once such a distinction turns up (perhaps in this discussion), the circularity might disappear though(?)

As I said, I think there's a difference between our perception of the passage of time and time itself. Time can be passing even if we can't perceive any change. I think it would be arrogant to think that if time were passing, we MUST be able to detect a change.

I note the underlined words involve observations .. Ie: observations of:
(i) the object and;
(ii) observations of the clock which tells us time A and Time B.

Again, because observing change is the way we have at the moment of detecting the passage of time. At the moment, I'm not aware of any other methods, although to be honest I haven't thought about it much.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Time is a man made concept, because it relates only to our lifespan, which is about 80 years or so. If we lived to be 2500 years old, and we were 3000 times the size we are now, we would move much slower, and time would look totally different.

Time perception is dependent on the viewer.

Also, for the smallest of organisms, who live only a few days, and move much faster, time is also totally different.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Also, the only reason time exists is because we life forms can't go forward or backwards in it. so the perception of time, again, is based on human life.

 

[SelfSim]

Nice discussion .. (finally)!

Time is a man made concept

I agree with this part of your post.
I go further and assert that the concept is a fundamental part of how we humans make sense of anything, including 'change'. 'Change' makes absolutely no sense unless our minds somehow integrate observations of objects with our concept, which we name as 'time'. (Concepts are what our mind does).

An open challenge for anyone: Go ahead ... try it! Try to explain 'change' by excluding time .. I certainly can't make any sense when I try doing this test!

An observation in science is (crudely): the what, the where and the when.
Particularly in Astrophysics, if any of these components is missing, it doesn't rise to the level of being an observation. So the concept of time here, ('the when'), is an integral part of an observation which is included with it, so that we can make sense of that observation. 'Time' becomes the context which gives 'change' its meaning in our minds.
There is much evidence from the neurosciences that the Hippocampus region of the human brain is where contextual mappings occur .. in this case our minds' memory and time combine to give us the context for us to perceive 'change'.

I find this as being a fascinating insight actually .. the by-product is that our concept of time goes everywhere we make physical observations. Somewhat beyond science, time is a mind concept .. which can still, nonetheless, be scientifically tested, albeit by a slightly different approach from those we'd normally use in testing everyday 'objects'.
(This being because its a concept .. and not some object lying around out there somewhere in space ...)

 

[SelfSim]

... it doesn't follow that it is time itself.

The phrase 'time itself' tends to roll of the fingertips quite easily .. but unless we can come with up something other than science's own testable definition of 'time itself', which turns out to be a measurement, (or observation), of two separate events on a clock, I'm afraid I just don't get what you mean by the phrase 'time itself'.
(See also my views on this, in my post to Landon).

I am. Its not by inference though .. its by definition. And I think that's circular logic when we don't have some other way of distinguishing between change and time that I can see, other than by some other observation. Once such a distinction turns up (perhaps in this discussion), the circularity might disappear though(?)

As I said, I think there's a difference between our perception of the passage of time and time itself.

Well, I might understand that if I understood what you meant by 'time itself' .. (I mean given that you're suggesting there might be some kind of difference between it and 'our perception of its passage'(?) I guess I just don't understand what you mean here ..).
The distinction (or other observation), I'm hinting at here, is that it always seems to be us (ie: the human mind) that's always involved wherever time comes up as being needed to explain something like 'change'. Therefore 'time' has much to do with our minds ..
The influence of the observing mind is often excluded when we speak about observations in science .. yet, it is also always present. Mostly this so obviously mundane that we just never bring it up .. but in this particular instance, its inherent influence seems to be the missing factor which allows us to distinguish between 'time' and 'change' .. maybe(?)

Time can be passing even if we can't perceive any change.

See, I think what I'm saying here is that I think its us .. meaning our minds that 'inject' our concept of time into just about anything we want to make sense of .. such as our observations or our retellings of our perception of 'change'(?)

 

[SelfSim]

Also, the only reason time exists is because we life forms can't go forward or backwards in it. so the perception of time, again, is based on human life.

Try on that 'time exists' because we say 'it exists' and what we mean when we say 'it exists', depends entirely on our minds conceiving of, then assigning that meaning to that particular phrase.

Further, there is abundant objective evidence for: the 'existence' of time depends entirely on the human mind .. and there is no objective evidence that: it exists independently from it.

 

[Kylie]

Time is a man made concept, because it relates only to our lifespan, which is about 80 years or so. If we lived to be 2500 years old, and we were 3000 times the size we are now, we would move much slower, and time would look totally different.

Time perception is dependent on the viewer.

Also, for the smallest of organisms, who live only a few days, and move much faster, time is also totally different.

I would say that is the perception of time, not time itself.

 

[SelfSim]

I would say that is the perception of time, not time itself.

Yep .. however saying that, doesn't really make it easier for others to understand what's behind 'time itself'.
Needs more 'pith' (or follow through) methinks.

 

[Kylie]

Yep .. however saying that, doesn't really make it easier for others to understand what's behind 'time itself'.
Needs more 'pith' (or follow through) methinks.

I honestly don't know. I just don't think our perception of time is the same thing as what Time actually is. Time be WEIRD!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I honestly don't know. I just don't think our perception of time is the same thing as what Time actually is. Time be WEIRD!

Perhaps this is partly why many physicists have adopted the idea of a 4D Parminidean 'block' universe of spacetime, where time is a dimension in which events are ordered from some observer's viewpoint.

Objectively, the relativity of simultaneity introduced by Special Relativity means that any particular observer will potentially see events that are in some observer's future and events that are in some other observer's past. So any point on the time axis can be 'now' for some observer, just as any coordinate on the spatial axes can be 'here'.

Subjectively, a human observer's perception of time is regulated by biological clocks and modulated by the density, novelty, and emotional content of perceived events in experience and recollection.