Origin of Time and Space [Archive I]

Curtis

June 5, 2003, 10:04 PM

I'm certainly in over my head here, but I won't let that stop me from making an ass of myself.

1) is it logical to speculate about any higher-order space in which the manifold might be embedded?

In the manner you're phrasing this, you're asking if it is logical to speculate. In any situation where a solution or synthesis is not readily available, I would think that speculation isn't an improper route to take, and may yield insights into a solution. Perhaps even of the "Eureka!" variety. I'm assuming you mean "logical" as "reasonable" and not logical as "by the rules of logic".

2) is it even necessary that the manifold be embedded in a higher-order space?

I wouldn't think so. I think the reason higher order space is invoked is that it may help to bridge together what I understand is a conflict between quantum theory and Einstein's theories concerning gravity and what not. To loosely paraphrase Michio Kaku, the motion of the stars and planets may have not made much sense if you're looking up from a two dimensional Earth, but makes much more sense if you're in space, witnessing things in a three dimensional perspective. (from the book "Hyperspace") So using more dimensions may make things easier to understand.

3) is it logical to use timewise terminology (precedes, before, causes) when discussing the manifold?

It's probably not reasonable if the scientific perspective of time is used. At the period just at the Big Bang, where all existence was tightly condensed, laws of physics break down, so there's no way to really say anything conclusive. You could say the universe existed "forever" through a different form, and was not created, but that's speculation, which may be illogical from your perspective.
Also, the big bang model places the Big Bang as T=0, time 0, perhaps as a convenient marker. Maybe there was some form of time before the big bang, but since our understanding of reality breaks down at a point, only speculation will suffice for now.
I've noticed most people tend to see time as independent from the universe, some sort of higher concept which exists apart from universal motion. This may be a throwback to a Newtonian worldview, since people are used to thinking of time as a constant. In that perspective, it may make perfect sense to say "What came before?" I think the only way that this perception would match reality though, would be if our universe was inside or subordinate to some larger universe.

I'm not sure if any of that made sense, I just feel talkative today.

Friar Bellows

June 5, 2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Alix Nenuphar
If we consider the universe to a four-dimensional manifold with a well-defined metric that consists of the set of all events:

OK.

1) is it logical to speculate about any higher-order space in which the manifold might be embedded?

2) is it even necessary that the manifold be embedded in a higher-order space?

Well it's not illogical for the simple universe you have defined above, but it's not necessary either. You can do (general) relativity without the need for any extrinsic geometry.

3) is it logical to use timewise terminology (precedes, before, causes) when discussing the manifold?

Yes, I'd say it's logical and natural (but again, not necessary), because the universe on the large-scale lends itself to such a description. There is a certain way to "slice" our model of the universe into a "family" of 3D spacelike hypersurfaces which look pretty much the same everywhere (e.g. same pressure, temperature, & density at every event). This is the property of homogeneity, a very useful symmetry. Now we can parameterise this "family" of symmetry-preserving spacelike hypersurfaces, and call the relevant parameter, "time". And partly because of this homogeneity (and isotropy) it's very easy to keep track of this "time", and agree on it, no matter where you are in this model universe.

So the phrase, "evolution of the universe", makes sense because when we study the universe we find that its large-scale properties tend to vary with each successive spacelike "slice", while remaining the same within each slice; or in other (more familiar) words, it appears that the universe tends to evolve with time while remaining homogeneous and isotropic (ignoring such small-scale oddities as stars, planets and people). So time is still a useful quantity to use in general relativity, as long as you keep in mind that there is no such thing as "true" time, and you can define it just about any way you want. It's just that some ways are more natural and easier to deal with than others.

If time began with the universe, then it can be 'dated' but not caused, because causality would imply a timewise relationship between the universe and something else?

Well, we know our simple models and not-so-simple physics fail at very early times in the universe. So it's all just speculation beyond that point.

Bob K

June 8, 2003, 02:32 AM

Alix Nenuphar

The Origin of Time and Space

AN:If we consider the universe to a four-dimensional manifold with a well-defined metric that consists of the set of all events:

1) is it logical to speculate about any higher-order space in which the manifold might be embedded?

2) is it even necessary that the manifold be embedded in a higher-order space?

3) is it logical to use timewise terminology (precedes, before, causes) when discussing the manifold?

Allow me to clarify my questions.

If the universe (considered as the set of all events) can be accurately dated to 13.6 thousand million years old, does it make sense to state that the universe 'began'?

If time began with the universe, then it can be 'dated' but not caused, because causality would imply a timewise relationship between the universe and something else?

What if the universe = 1. the spatial dimension, space, an unbounded/infinite volume, consisting of a pure vacuum, with no structure imposed by matter/energy, an infinite void; 2. the temporal reality, time, the use of time-intervals to measure the occurrences of events in sequences of events; and 3. the physical reality, physics, the matter/energy of which all things/events existing in space are comprised?

Space would be a volumetric infinity; time would be a temporal infinity; and physics [matter/energy] would be a physical infinity of existence in space and duration in time because it is indestructible and can only be changed in form, as described by E = mc2 and m = E/c2, but physics--matter/energy--would be a physical 'finity' of quantity because the matter/energy of the universe is a closed system because matter/energy cannot be taken away from it (where would it go?) and matter/energy cannot be added to it (where would it come from?).

Then we would have space, the 'location' which is the 'where' of all things/events, we would have time, the 'when' of all things/events, and we would have matter/energy, the 'stuff' of which all things/events are comprised.

We could see that space/time/physics have existed with no beginning and will exist with no ending, and, that, therefore, the universe could not have had a beginning and will not have an ending.

If there are cycles of Bangs and Crunches, then space/time/physics is not created in Bangs nor destroyed in Crunches.

Causality being people/things/events who/which are causes causing/creating people/things/events who/which are effects, then there could never have been a first cause, there will never be a final effect, and instead of a first cause there was, is, and always will be a [i]source of causality, which is the physics--matter/energy--of the universe and which exists in the space and time of the universe.

[See http://www.bobkwebsite.com/invriabletimeintrvls.html and http://www.bobkwebsite.com/universethreerealities.html ]

We would never need any more dimensions than the 4D manifold of 3D x/y/z coordinates for the 'where' and the time T for the 'when' needed to describe the occurrences of events in the manifold of the universe.

Causality being people/things/events comprised of matter/energy and having spatial and physical x/y/z coordinates and a time coordinate as causes causing people/things/events of different/later spatial/physical x/y/z and temporal coordinate, it is indeed logical to use before/present/after terminology.

When time is the use of invariable time-intervals instead of variable time-intervals for the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events, then universal/absolute time is established and can be used for establishing simultaneity of events as well as before/after measurements.

NOTE: Variable time-intervals were used for the creation of Special and General Relativity (Einstein said so, p. 99, Relativity) and the concept of spacetime via the linkage of time and space by time dilation, but when invariable time-intervals are used for the measurement of time, then time dilation does not occur (because time everywhere is the same without exceptions), space and time are unlinked, independent of each other, and spacetime is destroyed, and before/simultaneous/after can be established.

paul30

June 10, 2003, 12:07 PM

It seems to me the notion of "cause" is necessarily connected to the notion of "time."

I personally believe time is not a reality of the world, but only a concept in our head to try to make sense of our perceptions.

(OK, OK, concepts in our heads DO have a sort of reality, but this may or may not correspond closely to anything outside our heads.)

I don't really think there is such a thing as "cause." We see invariable (or pretty frequent) correspondences between events, and we say the first "caused" the second.

But it's always based on a high statistic of repetitions.

How can such an analysis be applied to something that supposedly only happened once?

I think our way of describing events is very imperfect, to put it mildly.

If there are multiverses, that would not change what I am saying.

To repeat: our descriptions are inextricably subjective. Even if we repeat them over and over and still see the same sequences, that doesn't change their large remove from what is actually happening.

Bob K

June 10, 2003, 04:24 PM

paul30:It seems to me the notion of "cause" is necessarily connected to the notion of "time."

In what way(s)?

This, then that, therefore this caused that?

paul30:I don't really think there is such a thing as "cause." We see invariable (or pretty frequent) correspondences between events, and we say the first "caused" the second.

But it's always based on a high statistic of repetitions.

If you do not happen to believe in the reality of causality (some poetry therein), then I invite you to show up in the Quadrangle of Washington University of St. Louis (Missouri), and, upon command, run headfirst through the space coordinates of North Brookings Hall, and see if doing so 'causes' a serious headache.

And when you recover and are released from the hospital, we will then do this over again, and again, and again, until you either are dead or otherwise become convinced that, yes, there is a process of things/events as causes causing other things/events as effects.

By the way, no one has taken me up on this challenge, so I am still waiting for someone to volunteer to be the first.

Paul30:I personally believe time is not a reality of the world, but only a concept in our head to try to make sense of our perceptions.

When we really do use real time-intervals to really measure the real occurrences of real events in real sequences of real events, then time really does exist as a real process of real temporal measurement.

paul30:To repeat: our descriptions are inextricably subjective. Even if we repeat them over and over and still see the same sequences, that doesn't change their large remove from what is actually happening.

How do you know 'what is actually happening'?

Jesse

June 10, 2003, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Bob K
If you do not happen to believe in the reality of causality (some poetry therein), then I invite you to show up in the Quadrangle of Washington University of St. Louis (Missouri), and, upon command, run headfirst through the space coordinates of North Brookings Hall, and see if doing so 'causes' a serious headache.

And when you recover and are released from the hospital, we will then do this over again, and again, and again, until you either are dead or otherwise become convinced that, yes, there is a process of things/events as causes causing other things/events as effects.

By the way, no one has taken me up on this challenge, so I am still waiting for someone to volunteer to be the first.

This challenge misses the point. In math, if I use theorems A and B to prove theorem C, theorem C may be a logical consequence of A and B, but it was not "caused by" them. The notion of causality that I think you are defending presupposes certain ideas about the nature of time, and the past being determined by the future but not vice versa. It is not clear that this really reflects how the laws of physics work though--the laws that we know of are all totally time-symmetrical, so at a fundamental level it might be just as true that the state of a system at an earlier time is determined by its state at a later time as the opposite. One could believe that events are all related in a lawlike manner, like the relationship between different mathematical theorems, without believing in the traditional idea of causality. But these lawlike relationships between events would still mean that we can trust there will be a relationship between running into brick walls and head injuries.

Bob K

June 10, 2003, 05:45 PM

Jesse:In math, if I use theorems A and B to prove theorem C, theorem C may be a logical consequence of A and B, but it was not "caused by" them.

I have a problem with any math that does not describe reality.

If I recall correctly, Einstein himself said "The math must describe the physics." [If anyone has the source for this quote, I would like to know of it.]

Too many arrow-of-time events occur in reality for time to not be describable and therefore definable thus: Time is the use of time-intervals to measure the occurrences of events in sequences of events.

Moreover, there are two types of time-intervals: (1) variable time-intervals in clocks which are not adjusted for changes of velocity/gravity and (2) invariable time-intervals in clocks which are adjusted for changes of velocity/gravity.

Einstein said that he used variable time-intervals for developing SR/GR (p. 99, Relativity).

When variable time-intervals are used to measure time, the phenomenon of time-dilation appears to be a reality, but when invariable time-intervals are used to measure time, time-dilation disappears, time is everywhere the same (universal/absolute time), and spacetime is destroyed as a valid physical concept.

Time can be measured from a timepoint of origin, T0, using invariable time-intervals thus:

Past Infinity <- ... <- T-2 <- T-1 <- T) -> T+1 -> T+2 -> ... -> Infinity Future

At any timepoint, matter/energy will have a specific configuration, and for this configuration to be reproduced entirely in time travel, past or future, all things/events comprised of matter/energy will have to be transformed from their state at T0, the Now configuration, to the past/future configuration, and that will never happen.

When time is measured backwards or forwards, the Now moves forwards into the future, hence for any claim of being able to travel into time past/future is negated by the fact of the Now.

In a closed energy system, energy cannot be taken away (where would it go?) nor added (where would it come from?).

The matter/energy of the universe is a closed system because energy cannot be taken away (where would it go?) nor added (where would it come from?).

In a closed system, the sum total of matter/energy is a constant, a finite number, thus a finite quantity.

Because the matter/energy of the universe is a closed system, the matter/energy of the universe is a finite quantity.

There will be no additional matter/energy available to cause reconfigurations of the T0/Now matter/energy configuration to the past/future configuration necessary to exist at a timepoint in time travel.

Thus, because the Now configuration changes but moves forwards into time, there are no actual time symmetries regardless of theoretical mathematical symmetries, and eggs grow into adults and adults do not grow/regress into eggs, planets and other stuffs move in their present trajectories and do not reverse course, etc.

Regardless of mathematical theorems, there are in fact people/things/events who/which as causes cause other people/things/events who/which are effects, thus causality does exist as a real process.

If you choose to fart in church, then you are the cause of the fart in church, regardless of the theoretical mathematics.

The math must describe the physics.

By the way, do you know how to cut a fart in church?

... Turn and look very sternly at the person sitting next to you!

Jesse:The notion of causality that I think you are defending presupposes certain ideas about the nature of time, and the past being determined by the future but not vice versa.

The future Now is determined by the present Now which was determined by the past Now.

The past Now was never determined by a future Now (how could it be?).

Jesse: It is not clear that this really reflects how the laws of physics work though--the laws that we know of are all totally time-symmetrical, so at a fundamental level it might be just as true that the state of a system at an earlier time is determined by its state at a later time as the opposite.

Never happens in reality regardless of the theoretical mathematics.

Jesse:One could believe that events are all related in a lawlike manner, like the relationship between different mathematical theorems, without believing in the traditional idea of causality. But these lawlike relationships between events would still mean that we can trust there will be a relationship between running into brick walls and head injuries.

Skip the math and stick with the physics, and all will be well.

A future Now configuration (of which there will be only one at any future timepoint) is entirely dependent upon the present Now configuration (of which there is only one at the present timepoint), just as the present Now configuration is entirely dependent upon a past Now configuration (of which there was only one at any past timepoint).

Charles Proteus Steinmetz.
Four Lectures on Relativity and Space.
Dover Publications, Inc., 180 Varick Street, New York, NY 10014 1967
pp. 49�50.

The fundamental law of physics is the law of inertia. "A body keeps the same state as long as there is no cause to change its state." That is, it remains at rest or continues the same kind of motion�that is, motion with the same velocity in the same direction�until some cause changes it, and such cause we call a 'force.' " [Quotes in the original, but not attributed to anyone.]

This is really not merely a law of physics, but it is the fundamental law of logic. It is the law of cause and effect: "Any effect must have a cause, and without cause there can be no effect." This is axiomatic and is the fundamental conception of all knowledge, because all knowledge consists in finding the cause of some effect or the effect of some cause, and therefore must presuppose that every effect has some cause, and inversely. [Quotes in the original but not attributed to anyone.]

If we observe forces which function as causes which change the inertial states of people/things/events which are effects, then we have causality, no if-and-or-buts about it.

Jesse

June 10, 2003, 07:58 PM

Bob K
I have a problem with any math that does not describe reality.

If I recall correctly, Einstein himself said "The math must describe the physics." [If anyone has the source for this quote, I would like to know of it.]

Too many arrow-of-time events occur in reality for time to not be describable and therefore definable thus: Time is the use of time-intervals to measure the occurrences of events in sequences of events.

Most physicists seem to think the most likely explanation for all the arrow-of-time asymmetries that we observe is that they all trace back to the entropic arrow of time, which itself traces back to the low entropy conditions at the "beginning of the universe" (and if this is correct, the only reason we call it the 'beginning' as opposed to the 'end' is because the psychological arrow of time--our ability to remember the past but not the future--is also a consequence of the entropic arrow of time).

Bob K:
Moreover, there are two types of time-intervals: (1) variable time-intervals in clocks which are not adjusted for changes of velocity/gravity and (2) invariable time-intervals in clocks which are adjusted for changes of velocity/gravity.

I am not sure what you mean by "adjusted for changes in velocity/gravity". Can you be more specific about how, precisely, this would be done? If two observers are traveling at constant velocity relative to one another (inertial reference frames) and both observe the other one's clock to be running more slowly than their own, are you suggesting there is a way to determine which clock is "really" running more slowly? How could this be done, when all observations in different inertial reference frames appear to be totally symmetrical, with no physical experiments that can determine a preferred frame?

Bob K:
Einstein said that he used variable time-intervals for developing SR/GR (p. 99, Relativity).

When variable time-intervals are used to measure time, the phenomenon of time-dilation appears to be a reality, but when invariable time-intervals are used to measure time, time-dilation disappears, time is everywhere the same (universal/absolute time), and spacetime is destroyed as a valid physical concept.

Again, is the notion of "invariable time-intervals" something you have a reference for in known physics, or is it an invention of your own? If it's your own invention, can you offer any ideas about how one could physically determine the "true" reference frame?

Bob K:
Time can be measured from a timepoint of origin, T0, using invariable time-intervals thus:

Past Infinity <- ... <- T-2 <- T-1 <- T) -> T+1 -> T+2 -> ... -> Infinity Future

At any timepoint, matter/energy will have a specific configuration, and for this configuration to be reproduced entirely in time travel, past or future, all things/events comprised of matter/energy will have to be transformed from their state at T0, the Now configuration, to the past/future configuration, and that will never happen.

First of all, the whole idea of a universal "Now" presupposes a preferred reference frame, which the evidence does not support. In relativity different reference frames have different definitions of "simultaneity"--events A and B can happen at the same time for you, but for another observer in a different reference frame event A may have happened before event B, or vice versa.

As for time travel, nothing has to be "transformed" if time is just another dimension like space--then travel to the different times would be just like travel to another region of space. When I travel from New York to Paris, the configuration of matter/energy in New York does not transform to the configuration of Paris, it's just me that moves from one region to another. However, travel into the past is a speculative idea, general relativity seems to allow it in certain unusual circumstances but this may just be because general relativity is an imperfect approximation to some future theory of quantum gravity.

Travel to the future is on firm ground, though. For example, atomic clocks on space shuttles will show slightly less time elapsed for the voyage than clocks on earth which were synchronized with them before the flight.

Bob K:
Thus, because the Now configuration changes but moves forwards into time, there are no actual time symmetries regardless of theoretical mathematical symmetries, and eggs grow into adults and adults do not grow/regress into eggs, planets and other stuffs move in their present trajectories and do not reverse course, etc.

Regardless of mathematical theorems, there are in fact people/things/events who/which as causes cause other people/things/events who/which are effects, thus causality does exist as a real process.

You are simply asserting the idea that there is a single universal present and that time really flows, with no evidence or even arguments as far as I can tell. The block universe (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/time/chennotes.html) view of spacetime can certainly account for percieved asymmetries like adults not growing younger--it would all be a consequence of some kind of low-entropy boundary condition at the Big Bang (the physical explanation for this boundary condition is still debated, though).

Bob K:
The past Now was never determined by a future Now (how could it be?).

Is this nothing more than an argument from incredulity? I can see no logical contradictions in the idea that past states are determined by future ones, nor any contradiction with any physical experiments.

Bob K:
Skip the math and stick with the physics, and all will be well.

"Physics" is mostly just an attempt to come up with mathematical rules that accurately predict the results of various empirical experiments. Your verbal description of a "Now" which transforms over time and is dependent on the past is metaphysics, as is the 'block universe' view of time, unless you can think of some actual experiment that would somehow distinguish them. I would say that the lack of a physical preferred reference frame, the complete symmetry between experiments in different reference frames (which have different definitions of simultaneity), provides intuitive support for the "block universe" view, although there is no way to experimentally rule out the idea of a "metaphysical preferred reference frame" which is invisible to all experiments.

sodium

June 11, 2003, 12:54 AM

This is really not merely a law of physics, but it is the fundamental law of logic. It is the law of cause and effect: "Any effect must have a cause, and without cause there can be no effect." This is axiomatic and is the fundamental conception of all knowledge, because all knowledge consists in finding the cause of some effect or the effect of some cause, and therefore must presuppose that every effect has some cause, and inversely.

You are free to define "effect" so that it must have a cause. But don't expect the outside world to conform to any expectations that might arise from doing this. In particular, don't expect that everything is an effect, or that there have to be any effects at all. Similarly, you can define "space" so that it has to be Euclidean, and define "nothing" so that it can't spontaneously generate particles. That's fine, but you can't then expect that you will necessarily be describing anything about the real world.

As well, we can obviously seek knowledge without assuming that everything has a cause. We just look for those causes that exist.

Bob K

June 13, 2003, 05:32 AM

Jesse:

Bob K: I have a problem with any math that does not describe reality.

If I recall correctly, Einstein himself said "The math must describe the physics." [If anyone has the source for this quote, I would like to know of it.]

Too many arrow-of-time events occur in reality for time to not be describable and therefore definable thus: Time is the use of time-intervals to measure the occurrences of events in sequences of events.

Jesse: Most physicists seem to think the most likely explanation for all the arrow-of-time asymmetries that we observe is that they all trace back to the entropic arrow of time, which itself traces back to the low entropy conditions at the "beginning of the universe" (and if this is correct, the only reason we call it the 'beginning' as opposed to the 'end' is because the psychological arrow of time--our ability to remember the past but not the future--is also a consequence of the entropic arrow of time).

The concept/principle of absolute/universal time specified in the operational definition of time as the use of invariable time-intervals for the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events creates an arrow of time that is independent of physics, independent of matter/energy, and, therefore, independent of entropy.

The reason we have no memory of the future (a logical absurdity) is on account of the fact that the we can only remember what we have experienced and because the past has happened and we have experienced it we can have a memory of it but we have not experienced the future because the future has not happened, therefore we can have no memory of the future.

Not having a memory of the future is therefore not a function of a physical entropy.

Bob K

June 13, 2003, 05:34 AM

Bob K: Moreover, there are two types of time-intervals: (1) variable time-intervals in clocks which are not adjusted for changes of velocity/gravity and (2) invariable time-intervals in clocks which are adjusted for changes of velocity/gravity.

Jesse: I am not sure what you mean by "adjusted for changes in velocity/gravity". Can you be more specific about how, precisely, this would be done?

According to a friend who is a physicist and chairman of the physics department at a state university, it is possible to construct clocks (A) which are motion-sensing (for changes of velocity/gravity) and self-adjusting or (B) are synchronized by radio signals from a master clock.

Intuition, via gendankenexperiments (German: thought experiments--Einstein formulated his ideas using gedankenexperiments), tells us that invariable time-intervals are possible and that when invariable time-intervals are used then there is no time-dilation. When invariable time-intervals are created by either A or B, then a spaceclock identical to an Earthclock when returned to Earth will show the same face reading/invariable time-interval measurement/count as the Earthclock, and time-dilation is eliminated, and time is independent of space and spacetime is eliminated as a necessary physics concept.

Bob K

June 13, 2003, 05:36 AM

Jesse: If two observers are traveling at constant velocity relative to one another (inertial reference frames) and both observe the other one's clock to be running more slowly than their own, are you suggesting there is a way to determine which clock is "really" running more slowly? How could this be done, when all observations in different inertial reference frames appear to be totally symmetrical, with no physical experiments that can determine a preferred frame?

When light is used for obtaining information/observing physical phenomena, there is the instant problem of the speed of light and distortions of reality resulting from differences of the arrival times of information carried by light.

This distortion can be eliminated by the use of invariable time-interval clocks (ITICs) by the following process:

1. Identical ITICs set to the same timepoint origin, T0, are distributed through a region of space.
2. Observers are asked to monitor the occurrences of events in the immediate vicinity of ITICs at specific timepoints, thereby eliminating serious distortions of reality resulting from light speed delays.
3. When events are observed to occur at a specific ITIC timepoint, then those events are simultaneous; those occurring before or after the specific timepoint are obviously nonsimultaneous, and the differences of their reported timepoints is the measured time-interval difference of their occurrences.

Bob K

June 13, 2003, 05:40 AM

Bob K: Einstein said that he used variable time-intervals for developing SR/GR (p. 99, Relativity).

When variable time-intervals are used to measure time, the phenomenon of time-dilation appears to be a reality, but when invariable time-intervals are used to measure time, time-dilation disappears, time is everywhere the same (universal/absolute time), and spacetime is destroyed as a valid physical concept.

Jesse: Again, is the notion of "invariable time-intervals" something you have a reference for in known physics, or is it an invention of your own? If it's your own invention, can you offer any ideas about how one could physically determine the "true" reference frame?

I am not aware of anyone else's description/definition/specification of invariable time-intervals, so I currently have reason to believe that the intuition that the essence of time is the time-interval, the TI, used for the measurement of time, and that there are two types of time-intervals, (1) the variable time-interval, the VTI, and (2) the invariable time-interval, the ITI.

Here is Einstein's definition of time:Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Crown Publishers, New York, 1961, p. 99, translated by Robert Lawson:

"Clocks, for which the law of motion is of any kind, however irregular, serve for the definition of time."

I get the general impression that E might have been aware of the essence of time to be the TI and that there are two types of TIs, the VTI and the ITI, but I am not aware that he followed through on this intuition adn thereby determined what it would mean for SR/GR.

I have been told that an internet search for 'invariable time-intervals' will show only my website: www.bobkwebsite.com

When ITIs are used in ITICs, then time everywhere is the same, identical, absolute (Absolute Time, or AT), and universal (Universal Time, or UT), no exceptions, not excluding black holes, singularities, etc.

Thus, regardless of the reference frame, the AT/UT time is ITI/ITIC time.

ITI/ITIC time gives us a chance to block the configurations of matter/energy of the universe [which is a finite quantity, because it is a closed system from which matter/energy cannot be taken--where would it go?--and to which no matter/energy can be added--from where would it comes?] into time-specific configurations, Nows, much like the time-specific configurations/Nows of 2D photographs, only in 3D, and if instead of a 2D photograph of a Now we could create a 3D model of each Now then we could have a model/'picture' of each Now configuration, and, if we were Perfect Observers (POs) able to (A) move about each Now configuration as we wish and (B) observe and not disturb (just as we observe do not disturb the images on 2D photographs), then we could examine the precise physical dimensions of each thing comprised of matter/energy, and through a series of consecutive Nows/3D Now configuration models, we could plot the precise movement of every thing in the universe, and thereby eliminate QM observational confusions.

Biological organisms and mechanical machines are comprised of matter/energy, atoms/molecules/etc., and have internal operations/functionings which are both affected by changes of velocity and gravity, i.e., they have rates of operation/functioning which are affected by changes of velocity/gravity.

Increase the velocity/gravity, and the biological/mechanical rates of operation/functioning slow down/decrease; decrease the velocity/gravity, and the biological/mechanical rates of operation/functioning increase.

The reason for the changes of rates of operation/functioning is directly related to changes of inertial mass caused by changes of velocity/gravity.

When the velocities of organisms/machines increases or/and they enter increased gravitational densities, then their inertial masses increase and if the quantity of energy which produce forces which produce rates of operation/functioning remains constant, then that force will have to move against increased inertial masses and thus any associated motions, such as those of VTIs in VTICs, will decrease; and, the reciprocal, when the velocities of organisms/machines decreases or/and they enter decreased gravitational densities, then their inertial masses decrease and if the quantity of energy which produce forces which produce rates of operation/functioning remains constant, then that force will have to move against decreased inertial masses and thus any associated motions, such as those of VTIs in VTICs, will increase.

There is a speed limit to the rates of operation/functioning of biological organism/mechanical machines, and that speed limit is found only when organisms/machines are not moving and in gravitational fields of zero density.

This means that the maximum rate of operation/functioning for any organism/machine is to be found in the Absolute Reference Frame, the ARF, or the K zero reference frame (the expression 'K zero' is used instead of 'K prime' because many fonts do not recognize the subscript zero/degree mark usually assigned to the K zero reference frame symbol), and when the ARF/K zero reference frame is in a zero density gravitational field (which, logically, would be no gravitational field).

Can we detect the ARF with motion-sensing machines using TICs?

In theory, using intuitions developed from gedankenexperiments, of course we can detect the ARF.

In reality, maybe not, unless we use the properties of light [(A) the speed of light, the SOL, is constant and independent of the motion of a source; (B) the frequency of light is dependent, in part, on the motion of the source--increasing with increases of velocities and decreasing with decreases of velocities] for developing light-based guidance systems, in contrast to inertial guidance systems, and which would detect therefore the absolute motion or lack of it of a reference frame.

Bob K

June 13, 2003, 05:44 AM

Bob K: Time can be measured from a timepoint of origin, T0, using invariable time-intervals thus:

Past Infinity <- ... <- T-2 <- T-1 <- T) -> T+1 -> T+2 -> ... -> Infinity Future

At any timepoint, matter/energy will have a specific configuration, and for this configuration to be reproduced entirely in time travel, past or future, all things/events comprised of matter/energy will have to be transformed from their state at T0, the Now configuration, to the past/future configuration, and that will never happen.

Jesse: First of all, the whole idea of a universal "Now" presupposes a preferred reference frame, which the evidence does not support. In relativity different reference frames have different definitions of "simultaneity"--events A and B can happen at the same time for you, but for another observer in a different reference frame event A may have happened before event B, or vice versa.

There is a problem of the distortion of information carried by light due to the fact that the SOL is (assumed to be) a constant and there are time differences of the arrival of light-carried information when there are geographical/geometrical distance differences between Event A and Event B and an observer. Light requires time to traverse distances, and the further away from an observer the longer the time light will require to traverse the distance to the observer and 'arrive.'

But if an observer is able to determine the distance differences between himself and the Events A and B, then, knowing the SOL and the distance light information from A and B traversed, and his motion relative to the Events, then he can determine when Events A and B occurred and thereby determine the simultaneity/nonsimultaneity of Events A and B.

In Einstein's famous train carriage/embankment analogy/example, if the Embankment Observer EO is able to determine the distances from himself and Events A and B, then he can determine if or not they are simultaneous; likewise, if Carriage Observer, CO, is able to determine the distances between himself and Events A and B and the velocity of the carriage, then he, too, can determine if or not Events A and B are simultaneous.

Jesse: As for time travel, nothing has to be "transformed" if time is just another dimension like space--then travel to the different times would be just like travel to another region of space. When I travel from New York to Paris, the configuration of matter/energy in New York does not transform to the configuration of Paris, it's just me that moves from one region to another. However, travel into the past is a speculative idea, general relativity seems to allow it in certain unusual circumstances but this may just be because general relativity is an imperfect approximation to some future theory of quantum gravity.

The total configuration of the matter/energy of the universe changes when any person/thing comprised of matter/energy changes position.

Thus, when you move from NY to Paris, the matter/energy configuration of the entire universe changes.

We could prove this if were we able to take 3D photographs of each Now configuration. We can, nevertheless, prove this within the limits of 2D photographs of you in New York vs. you in Paris--you would occur in the matter/energy configuration of the universe at the timepoint at which the New York 2D photo was taken and you would occur in the matter/energy configuration of the universe at the later timepoint at which the Paris 2D photo was taken, thus we would observe two different universal matter/energy configurations at the two different times.

A specific Now configuration of matter/energy occurs only once at a specific timepoint; at all other timepoints, the Now matter/energy configuration is different from all other past, current and future Now matter/energy configurations.

Jesse: Travel to the future is on firm ground, though. For example, atomic clocks on space shuttles will show slightly less time elapsed for the voyage than clocks on earth which were synchronized with them before the flight.

Time dilation is a fiction resulting from the use of VTIs/VTICs for the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events and is shown to be such by the use of ITIs/ITICs, intuitive or real, for the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events.

When VTIs/VTICs are used, spaceclocks will show a difference of face readings/time measurement than identical Earthclocks and time dilation will appear to have occurred and therefore to be a reality; but when ITIs/ITICs are used, spaceclocks will show identical face readings/time measurement as identical Earthclocks, and time dilation will be shown to be a fiction.

If this observation screws up SR/GR and QM, then TS for SR/GR and QM.

Time travel is therefore impossible.

Observe intuitively what would have to happen for you to travel backwards into a timepoint prior to your own birth or forwards into a timepoint after your death: your presence would change the matter/energy configuration of the entire universe and therefore would change the Now configuration by causing it to be different from the original Now configuration at the timepoint.

Further, from where would the energy necessary for changes of matter/energy configurations to occur which would reconstruct past Now configurations and construct future configurations? There is no other source of matter/energy other than the matter/energy currently present in the universe, because the universe is a closed matter/energy system, therefore there can be no changes of the current Now matter/energy configuration which would cause additional changes of the inertial masses of things/objects comprised of matter/energy and present in the current Now matter/energy configuration.

Bob K

June 13, 2003, 05:46 AM

Bob K: Thus, because the Now configuration changes but moves forwards into time, there are no actual time symmetries regardless of theoretical mathematical symmetries, and eggs grow into adults and adults do not grow/regress into eggs, planets and other stuffs move in their present trajectories and do not reverse course, etc.

Regardless of mathematical theorems, there are in fact people/things/events who/which as causes cause other people/things/events who/which are effects, thus causality does exist as a real process.

Jesse: You are simply asserting the idea that there is a single universal present and that time really flows, with no evidence or even arguments as far as I can tell. The block universe view of spacetime can certainly account for perceived asymmetries like adults not growing younger--it would all be a consequence of some kind of low-entropy boundary condition at the Big Bang (the physical explanation for this boundary condition is still debated, though).

The concept of AT/UT when measured by ITIs/ITICs eliminates the necessity for using entropy to determine time asymmetries and arrows of time: for each AT/UT timepoint measured by ITIs/ITICs, there will be one and only one matter/energy Now configuration--whatever it is--and the immediate previous/future Now will have a different configuration, and the differences of configurations between previous<->current<->future Nows will produce time asymmetries and arrows of time.

This concept of AT/UT measured by ITIs/ITICs eliminates confusions of entropy and proves that time is infinite in measurement into the past and the future regardless of the past/current/future configurations of matter/energy and their related entropies.

Bob K

June 13, 2003, 05:50 AM

Bob K: The past Now was never determined by a future Now (how could it be?).

Jesse: Is this nothing more than an argument from incredulity? I can see no logical contradictions in the idea that past states are determined by future ones, nor any contradiction with any physical experiments.

No, it is an argument from logic.

Causality, people/things/events comprised of matter/energy who/which are causes causing people/things/events who/which are effects also comprised of matter/energy, only works from the past Now matter/energy configurations to the present Now matter/energy configuration into the future Now matter/energy configurations, never backwards from the future to the present into the past.

Causes present in past Nows could only have caused effects present in the current Now, which, in turn, can only be causes of effects which will be present in future Nows.

Restated, the past Now matter/energy configurations certainly occurred and produced the current Now matter/energy configuration which is the only matter/energy configuration which could produce a future matter/energy configuration.

Restated, we have never, ever, observed an event in the future which affected people/things/events in the present nor in the past, and there is no causal reason why we should ever observe such 'miracles.'

Restated, that which has not yet happened cannot possibly influence what is happening and what has happened.

Bob K

June 13, 2003, 05:59 AM

Bob K: Skip the math and stick with the physics, and all will be well.

Jesse: "Physics" is mostly just an attempt to come up with mathematical rules that accurately predict the results of various empirical experiments. Your verbal description of a "Now" which transforms over time and is dependent on the past is metaphysics, as is the 'block universe' view of time, unless you can think of some actual experiment that would somehow distinguish them. I would say that the lack of a physical preferred reference frame, the complete symmetry between experiments in different reference frames (which have different definitions of simultaneity), provides intuitive support for the "block universe" view, although there is no way to experimentally rule out the idea of a "metaphysical preferred reference frame" which is invisible to all experiments.

Physics ought to be the science which develops concepts and principles accurately describing the forces which are the causes of changes of inertial states of people/things/events comprised of matter/energy.

The concepts/principles of physics, or of any other science, ought to be describable in words, particularly words defined using operational definitions, to avoid complications induced by mathematics which may seem to describe reality but which may not; and when mathematics are used to describe reality, they must conform precisely to the verbal descriptions of reality, and if there are confusions resulting from the limitations of mathematical rules and regulations, then the math must be replaced by the physics and the verbal description of the physics.

There are three concepts/principles which enable us to understand the universe as a combination of space, time and physics (matter/energy):

1. The expression X + i which says that for every finite volume of X there is an infinite volume of i that can be added to X and which surrounds X.

Space = X + i proves that space is an infinite volume, having the condition of having no mathematical/physical limits.

2. The operational definition of time as the use of ITIs/ITICs for the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events.

This produces the concept of AT/UT and therefore time everywhere the same and the possibility of determining both simultaneity and nonsimultaneity of events.

The continuum of time when measured by ITIs/ITICs shows us the infinity of time, the infinite measurement of time-intervals:

Past Infinity <- ... <- T-2 <- T-1 <- T) -> T+1 -> T+2 -> ... -> Infinity Future.

Time dilation does not occur, and that's TS for SR/GR spacetime and QM.

3. The intuition/observation that the matter/energy of the universe is a closed system because no matter/energy can be taken from it (where would it go?) and matter/energy cannot be added to it (where would it come from?).

This intuition/observation produces the intuition/observation that although the matter/energy of the universe is indestructible and therefore infinite in duration it is finite in quantity.

Thus, matter/energy (A) has the condition of being infinite in duration, in having no mathematical or physical limits to its duration, as proven by experiments in thermodynamics and experimental/observational confirmations of E = mc2 and m = E/c2, and (B) has the condition of having a specific mathematical/physical limit describable by a specific/finite number--whatever that number may be.

Also, a finite volume of matter/energy cannot be dispersed homogeneously infinitely into an infinite volume.

This intuition/observation produces the intuition/observation that within space there will be areas in which no matter/energy will be present, not even electromagnetic/gravitational force fields, and that, therefore, there will be areas of space which will be pure vacuums, areas totally devoid of matter/energy.

This intuition/observation produces the intuition/observation that the true nature of space is an infinite pure vacuum having absolutely no structure whatsoever when structure is assumed to be imposable only by people/things/events comprised of matter/energy.

Thus, space is the pure vacuum which is infinite in volume and infinite in duration in time, time is infinite in the measurement of the duration of space and physics (matter/energy), and physics (matter/energy) is infinite in duration but finite in quantity, and, together, space/time/physics produce the universe.

Bob K

June 13, 2003, 06:02 AM

sodium:You are free to define "effect" so that it must have a cause. But don't expect the outside world to conform to any expectations that might arise from doing this. In particular, don't expect that everything is an effect, or that there have to be any effects at all.

What expectations might arise from defining effects to have had causes (and the reciprocal, for causes to cause effects) to which the outside world may or may not conform?

In what ways could people/things/events not be effects of previous causes, of the causes of people/things/events who/which are forces causing changes of inertial states?

The matter/energy of the universe is infinite in duration [indestructible, E = mc2 and m = E/c2] and finite in quantity [the matter/energy of the universe is a closed matter/energy system because it fits the definition of a closed matter/energy system because matter/energy cannot be taken away from it (where would it go?) and matter/energy cannot be added to it (where would it come from?)].

Thus, matter/energy has existed without being caused; there never was a first cause.

People make a fundamental mistake when they look for a first cause, because they think that causality--causes causing effects--must trace back to a first cause, an initial cause and they do not realize that what they are really looking for, and must look for because matter/energy although finite in quantity is infinite in duration, is the source of causality, where causality comes from, and that uncaused, unbegun and neverending source of causality is matter/energy.

Causality, however, has been happening forever without a beginning in time and thus all persons/things/events now observable have changed in form and thus have been subjected to causality, to forces which have caused changes in their inertial states and therefore have caused effects, at least the effects of changes of their inertial states.

sodium:Similarly, you can define "space" so that it has to be Euclidean, and define "nothing" so that it can't spontaneously generate particles. That's fine, but you can't then expect that you will necessarily be describing anything about the real world.

As well, we can obviously seek knowledge without assuming that everything has a cause. We just look for those causes that exist.

Yes, I define space to be a pure vacuum, because of the intuition that produced the awareness that the matter/energy of the universe while infinite in duration is finite in quantity and cannot be dispersed uniformly into all areas of an infinite volume which would require that there be areas of infinite space in which there would be no matter/energy present and, with no matter/energy present, those areas of space would have to be pure vacuums, which indicates the true nature of space itself to be a pure vacuum, and those area of space in which matter/energy is present are simply areas of space in which matter/energy is present, a fact which is independent of the true nature of space, which is a pure vacuum.

If you claim that particles can be spontaneously generated from a pure vacuum then you are essentially saying that something can come from nothing.

Nothing comes from nothing and something only comes from something else.

This claim is supported by the infinite duration of matter/energy as a source of something from which all other somethings can come.

If instead of defining space to be a pure vacuum physicists foolishly define space to be gravitational fields, and they do not realize that the source of a force, which is a push or a pull, can only be matter/energy, then they do not realize that gravitational fields which produce known changes of inertial states of object within them are a form of matter/energy, and, therefore, when particles appear to appear in space from nothing they are nevertheless appearing as having been caused by the something which is matter/energy.

I.e., electromagnetic and gravitational fields are force fields, comprised of matter/energy, because they produce forces which change the inertial states of objects within them, and if they produce particles then they produce particles as a causality natural process wherein something comes from something.

Something comes only from something, and any time you have what appears to be something coming from nothing then you have to find that something from which something came, which will be matter/energy of some kind, perhaps of a kind not currently observed, but, nevertheless, matter/energy of some kind.

Jesse

June 13, 2003, 06:05 AM

Bob K:
The reason we have no memory of the future (a logical absurdity) is on account of the fact that the we can only remember what we have experienced and because the past has happened and we have experienced it we can have a memory of it but we have not experienced the future because the future has not happened, therefore we can have no memory of the future.

Not having a memory of the future is therefore not a function of a physical entropy.

I would say it is a function of entropy, and I have a simple thought-experiment to show this. Imagine a deterministic computer simulation of a simple world obeying time-reversible laws. By running it forward for X time from a certain set of initial conditions, and then taking the final state at the end of this time and reversing things like the velocity of all the objects, then if you use this reversed state as a new set of initial conditions and run the simulation forward according to the same laws for X time, the simulation will behave like a backwards movie of the first run even though you are running the laws forward. For example, you could do this with a simulation of balls on a pool table which have elastic collisions and no friction--if you reverse the velocities of all the balls at a particular instant and run the simulation forwards, it will display exactly the reversed behavior of what you saw earlier, perhaps behaving in an unusual way like regrouping from a chaotic arrangement into the nice triangle that pool balls are placed in at the start of a game.

Now, imagine a deterministic simulation with time-reversible fundamental laws that is complex enough to contain artificial intelligences. Again, if the laws are both deterministic and reversible, then if you run it for a while and then reverse the endstate in the appropriate way (reversing the velocity of all particles, and possible charge and parity as well, depending on how close the simulation's laws are to real physical laws), then if you use this reversed endstate as the initial conditions for your first run, then in the second run the entire system will appear like a reversed version of the first one, including any memories the A.I.s formed along the way. Assuming there was nothing special about the initial conditions in the first run, it is overwhelmingly likely that you will have observed total entropy increasing over time; but with the unusual, "tricky" initial conditions of the second run obtained by reversing the endstate of the first one, you will get the weird result that, along with the A.I's memory working in reverse, entropy will actually decrease as you run the simulation forward from those initial conditions.

Physicists think there is a good reason why the direction of memory would be correlated with the direction of increasing entropy. Stephen Hawking describes the basic idea on p. 145-146 of A Brief History of Time (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553380168/InternetInfidels):

It is rather difficult to talk about human memory because we don't know how the brain works in detail. We do, however, know all about how computer memories work. I shall therefore discuss the psychological arrow of time for computers. I think it is reasonable to assume that the arrow for computers is the same as that for humans. If it were not, one could make a killing on the stock exchange by having a computer that would remember tomorrow's prices!

A computer memory is basically a device containing elements that can exist in either of two states. A simple example is an abacus. In its simplest form, this consists of a number of wires; on each wire is a bead that can be put in one of two positions. Before an item is recorded in a computer's memory, the memory is in a disordered state, with equal probabilities for the two possible states. (The abacus beads are scattered randomly on the wires of the abacus.) After the memory interacts with the system to be remembered, it will definitely be in one state or the other, according to the state of the system. (Each abacus bead will be at either the left or the right of the abacus wire.) So the memory has passed from a disordered state to an ordered one. However, in order to make sure that the memory is in the right state, it is necessary to use a certain amount of energy (to move the bead or to power the computer, for example). This energy is dissipated as heat, and increases the amount of disorder in the universe. One can show that this increase in disorder is always greater than the increase in the order of the memory itself. Thus the heat expelled by the computer's cooling fan means that when a a computer records an item in memory, the total amount of disorder in the universe still goes up. The direction of time in which a computer remembers the past is the same as that in which disorder increases.

Also, note that in the simulation with unusual initial conditions that lead to increasing order over time, a simulated version of Bob K would be quite wrong if he argued that the direction of memory is necessarily the same as the direction of the moving "now". Even if you assume there is such a thing as a moving "now", it would presumably be moving in the forward direction of the "real" universe, but simulated Bob K's sense of time would be reversed from that of people in the real universe watching the simulation being run. In principle, if our universe was deterministic, there would be no reason it would be impossible that the state of matter/energy at some time T would be an unusual one in which entropy would decrease and memories would run in reverse for some time after T (it would be extremely unlikely, of course).

Jesse

June 13, 2003, 06:15 AM

Jesse:
I am not sure what you mean by "adjusted for changes in velocity/gravity". Can you be more specific about how, precisely, this would be done?

Bob K:
According to a friend who is a physicist and chairman of the physics department at a state university, it is possible to construct clocks (A) which are motion-sensing (for changes of velocity/gravity) and self-adjusting or (B) are synchronized by radio signals from a master clock.

Intuition, via gendankenexperiments (German: thought experiments--Einstein formulated his ideas using gedankenexperiments), tells us that invariable time-intervals are possible and that when invariable time-intervals are used then there is no time-dilation. When invariable time-intervals are created by either A or B, then a spaceclock identical to an Earthclock when returned to Earth will show the same face reading/invariable time-interval measurement/count as the Earthclock, and time-dilation is eliminated, and time is independent of space and spacetime is eliminated as a necessary physics concept.

Of course it would be possible to construct an unusual spaceship clock that took into account the ship's motion relative to the earth and would be synchronized with ordinary earth clocks on the spaceship's return. It would also be possible to construct an unusual clock on earth that would be synchronized with an ordinary clock on the spaceship when the ship returned. But without a preferred reference frame, there's basis for saying that one of these two unusual clocks is more correct than the other (and both will give different answers for the amount of time between when the ship departed and when it returned).

Ask your physicist friend this: is there any way to find a single objective answer to the question of which of two events A and B with a spacelike separation between them "really" happened first? I think he would agree that the answer always depends on your reference frame, so without a preferred frame the question "which happened first" has no single true answer.

Jesse

June 13, 2003, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Bob K
Jesse: If two observers are traveling at constant velocity relative to one another (inertial reference frames) and both observe the other one's clock to be running more slowly than their own, are you suggesting there is a way to determine which clock is "really" running more slowly? How could this be done, when all observations in different inertial reference frames appear to be totally symmetrical, with no physical experiments that can determine a preferred frame?

When light is used for obtaining information/observing physical phenomena, there is the instant problem of the speed of light and distortions of reality resulting from differences of the arrival times of information carried by light.

This distortion can be eliminated by the use of invariable time-interval clocks (ITICs) by the following process:

1. Identical ITICs set to the same timepoint origin, T0, are distributed through a region of space.
2. Observers are asked to monitor the occurrences of events in the immediate vicinity of ITICs at specific timepoints, thereby eliminating serious distortions of reality resulting from light speed delays.
3. When events are observed to occur at a specific ITIC timepoint, then those events are simultaneous; those occurring before or after the specific timepoint are obviously nonsimultaneous, and the differences of their reported timepoints is the measured time-interval difference of their occurrences.

As I understand it, your "ITICs" are just clocks that are programmed to keep in synch with a particular reference frame, regardless of their motion relative to this frame. That's all very well and good, but the critical question is, how do you decide which frame to synchronize them with? Without any evidence of a physical preferred reference frame, such a decision will be arbitrary, and even if your theories about moving nows are correct there'll be no way to know whether you've chosen the correct frame. A natural choice might be the rest frame of the cosmic background radiation, but there's no reason in principle why the matter and energy making up the entire visible universe might not have some nonzero average velocity relative to the frame of "absolute space", if such a thing existed.

Corona688

June 15, 2003, 04:44 PM

There is no such thing as an invariable time interval clock, is the problem! It's a theoretical construct only, and a physical impossibility. Consider:

A clock is sailing through empty space. No stars or reference points. The clock is moving at constant speed in a constant direction, not being accelerated by any forces.

Due to the theory of relativity, time "slows down" for objects that are moving at speeds close to c.. thus to maintain an "invariable" time reference, the clock would have to know how fast it's moving - but it DOESN'T know. The ONLY way to gague velocity is with respect to something else.

Thus your "invariable" time interval clock cannot provide a universally constant time interval unless it has a universally constant reference. The very concept of a universally constant reference was ditched with the aether theory.

Your clock would certainly be able to give invariable time intervals with respect to something else, but that's hardly universally invariable.

thomaq

June 19, 2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Bob K
What expectations might arise from defining effects to have had causes (and the reciprocal, for causes to cause effects) to which the outside world may or may not conform?

In what ways could people/things/events not be effects of previous causes, of the causes of people/things/events who/which are forces causing changes of inertial states?

The matter/energy of the universe is infinite in duration [indestructible, E = mc2 and m = E/c2] and finite in quantity [the matter/energy of the universe is a closed matter/energy system because it fits the definition of a closed matter/energy system because matter/energy cannot be taken away from it (where would it go?) and matter/energy cannot be added to it (where would it come from?)].

Thus, matter/energy has existed without being caused; there never was a first cause.

People make a fundamental mistake when they look for a first cause, because they think that causality--causes causing effects--must trace back to a first cause, an initial cause and they do not realize that what they are really looking for, and must look for because matter/energy although finite in quantity is infinite in duration, is the source of causality, where causality comes from, and that uncaused, unbegun and neverending source of causality is matter/energy.

Causality, however, has been happening forever without a beginning in time and thus all persons/things/events now observable have changed in form and thus have been subjected to causality, to forces which have caused changes in their inertial states and therefore have caused effects, at least the effects of changes of their inertial states.

sodium:

Yes, I define space to be a pure vacuum, because of the intuition that produced the awareness that the matter/energy of the universe while infinite in duration is finite in quantity and cannot be dispersed uniformly into all areas of an infinite volume which would require that there be areas of infinite space in which there would be no matter/energy present and, with no matter/energy present, those areas of space would have to be pure vacuums, which indicates the true nature of space itself to be a pure vacuum, and those area of space in which matter/energy is present are simply areas of space in which matter/energy is present, a fact which is independent of the true nature of space, which is a pure vacuum.

If you claim that particles can be spontaneously generated from a pure vacuum then you are essentially saying that something can come from nothing.

Nothing comes from nothing and something only comes from something else.

This claim is supported by the infinite duration of matter/energy as a source of something from which all other somethings can come.

If instead of defining space to be a pure vacuum physicists foolishly define space to be gravitational fields, and they do not realize that the source of a force, which is a push or a pull, can only be matter/energy, then they do not realize that gravitational fields which produce known changes of inertial states of object within them are a form of matter/energy, and, therefore, when particles appear to appear in space from nothing they are nevertheless appearing as having been caused by the something which is matter/energy.

Something comes only from something, and any time you have what appears to be something coming from nothing then you have to find that something from which something came, which will be matter/energy of some kind, perhaps of a kind not currently observed, but, nevertheless, matter/energy of some kind.

how do you answer the problem of an infinite regress of moments? we would not be at the present if there are an infinte amount of past moments (or infinite intervals of duration).

Bob K

June 23, 2003, 03:29 AM

thomaq:[How] do you answer the problem of an infinite regress of moments?

I have never heard of 'the problem of an infinite regress of moments.'

Exactly what is 'an infinite regress of moments'?

And exactly what is 'the problem of an infinite regress of moments'?

When I searched the internet using Ask Jeeves.Com, the results were essays which presented incoherent gibberish.

There is a simple reality herein, which consists of things--objects comrpised of matter/energy which retain their identity for a longer time period than relevant events--and events--relationships between or among things, particularly of causal relationships wherein people/things/events who/which are causes cause people/things/events who/which are effects, and regardless of Kant's theory that we cannot know a 'thing in itself,' the essence of a thing, the fact is that we have sensory organs which provide us with perceptual information we can and do use, along with our ability to think both inductively and deductively, to determine the physical evidence that will serve as proof that our mental representations of things and events in reality--our ideas, our concepts of things and our principles which describe the causal relationships between/among things--are accurate, and, therefore, true.

When time is defined as the use of time-intervals (TIs) for the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events, and invariable time-intervals (ITIs) are used for the measurement of time, then, from a starting timepoint of T0 time-intervals can be counted infinitely--without mathematical or physical limits--both forwards into the future and backwards into the past.

Here is the continuum of time:

Past Infinity <- ... <- T-2 <- T-1 <- T0 -> T+1 -> T+2 -> ... -> Infinity Future

This continuum shows that timepoints can be counted without limits, infinitely, into the future and into the past.

An m/e config is a configuration of the matter/energy of the universe at a specific timepoint [m/e config = matter/energy configuration].

The m/e of the universe is finite because it is a closed system from which m/e cannot be taken (where would it go?) and to which m/e cannot be added (where would it come from?).

There is only one actual/physical Now, which is the configuration of the finite matter/energy of the universe at the present moment, the T0, which was caused by previous Nows and will cause future Nows.

In the past there were Nows at each timepoint, each with its specific m/e config, there is the present Now at the present timepoint, with its specific m/e config, and in the future there will new Nows at each timepoint, each with its specific m/e config.

That's what is.

If by 'infinite regress of moments' you mean Nows at each and every timepoint into the past, then, ... so, what is the 'problem'?

If the 'problem of the infinite regress of moments' is that someone claims there cannot be an 'infinite regress of moments' then he certainly has to present his reasoning/proof of his assertions.

What is the proof that there cannot possibly be an 'infinite regress of moments'?

Otherwise, the continuum of time presented thus ...

Past Infinity <- ... <- T-2 <- T-1 <- T0 -> T+1 -> T+2 -> ... -> Infinity Future

... describes exactly what's what with time, i.e., there was no beginning to time (who/what began it? and who/what began who/what began time?), there is the present, and there will be no ending to time (who/what will end it?), hence there is an infinite regress of moments/Nows/timepoints backwards into time past and there will be an infinite progress of moments/Nows/timepoints forwards into time future.

Bob K

June 23, 2003, 03:37 AM

thomaq:[We] would not be at the present if there [is] an infinite amount of past moments (or infinite intervals of duration).

Why would we 'not be at the present if there [is] an infinite amount of past moments'?

Who claims this?

What does he know of time? Does he have a definition, an operational definition, of time?

If so, what is it?

The expression 'an infinite amount' implies that 'an infinite amount' is a specific/finite number, which is impossible because of the fact that infinity never was, is nor ever could be, a specific/finite number (if you think 'an infinite amount' is a specific/finite number, please tell us what it is) but is, instead, a condition of having no mathematical or physical limits.

Time, being infinite, the number of Nows backward into the past having no mathematical limits, and the number of Nows forwards into the future having no mathematical limits, survives any claims that there cannot be an infinite regress of moments/Nows/timepoints or that there cannot be an infinite progress of moments/Nows/timepoints.

With the continuum of time presented, ...

Past Infinity <- ... <- T-2 <- T-1 <- T0 -> T+1 -> T+2 -> ... -> Infinity Future

... there is in fact an infinite series of Nows/moments and we are still here, in the present, and we are the basis of the infinite future series of Nows/moments.

Jesse

June 23, 2003, 02:27 PM

Bob K, any chance you could address my criticisms from earlier in this thread? I especially would like clarification on your "invariable time interval clocks", since it seems to me they are merely a description of clocks which have been programmed to keep sychronized with a particular reference frame, but unless the choice of which reference frame to use as a basis can be made in a non-arbitrary way, this is a pretty trivial idea that doesn't in any way challenge the relativistic idea that there is no preferred reference frame, and that one's definition of whether two events are "simultaneous" depends on one's reference frame. In addition, since in classical general relativity all worldlines defining all possible reference frames terminate at the Big Bang, no matter what reference frame you choose as your basis for synchronizing clocks, it will not justify your claim that somehow ITICs would allow time to go back infinitely far.

I'd also be interested in your response to my post on A.I.s with reversed psychological arrows of time due to initial conditions which give a reversed entropic arrow of time, but the questions about ITICs are the main thing I'm curious about.

paul30

June 23, 2003, 03:32 PM

All math is tautology, and may or may not have anything to do with external reality.

I completely reject the notion of cause.

It is used in science and everyday life as an expedient, but it based on completely illogical assumptions.

The idea is: if A has invariably been followed by B in the past, then A will continue to be followed by B in the future.

This is the notion of "cause." But it is only a guess.

No matter how many times A has been followed by B in the past, the very next time it might not be.

And no matter how many times you try it, that won't show that the next time it won't fail.

The percentage may be high enough for us to ignore the possibility of variation; but it is illogical to do so.

For this reason I don't think there is any real causality, only observations that seem to support the idea. These observations, like all observations, could be wrong.

Bob K

July 3, 2003, 02:41 AM

Corona688:There is no such thing as an invariable time interval clock, is the problem! It's a theoretical construct only, and a physical impossibility. Consider:

A clock is sailing through empty space. No stars or reference points. The clock is moving at constant speed in a constant direction, not being accelerated by any forces.

Due to the theory of relativity, time "slows down" for objects that are moving at speeds close to c.. thus to maintain an "invariable" time reference, the clock would have to know how fast it's moving - but it DOESN'T know. The ONLY way to gauge velocity is with respect to something else.

Thus your "invariable" time interval clock cannot provide a universally constant time interval unless it has a universally constant reference. The very concept of a universally constant reference was ditched with the aether theory.

Your clock would certainly be able to give invariable time intervals with respect to something else, but that's hardly universally invariable.

You have missed important points I have made:

1. Invariable time-intervals (ITIs) can be created by the use of (A) motion-sensing and self-adjusting clocks or (B) clocks which are synchronized by radio signals from a master clock.
2. Once in motion, the A-clocks will sense changes of motion and self-adjust (and, the reciprocal, if not in motion will sense no change of motion and will not self-adjust--why would they if they are motion-sensing and self-adjusting and sense no change of motion?) and the B-clocks will simply be synchronized when they receive radio signal instructions from their master clock regardless of their change of motion or lack of change of motion, and time everywhere will be the same.

For an A-clock, there is no reference to something else needed--the clock is its own reference for sensed changes/sensed non-changes of its velocity. It would sense the application of a force, the amount of the force, and the duration of a force which accelerates/decelerates it, and during the change of velocity it would self-adjust, which is what motion-sensing and self-adjusting clocks do.

For a B-clock, while the clock certainly has reference to the radio signals from the master clock, its has absolutely no reference to anything else. A B-clock essentially becomes an invariable time-interval clock when it is synchronized by its master clock, and all B-clocks synchronized by the same master clock will show identical face readings regardless of location or motion or gravity.

If the B-master clock were not motion-sensing/self-adjusting, then it would not 'know'/'sense' if or not it is being accelerated, but what if it WERE an A-clock and therefore motion-sensing/self-adjusting, then it would both sense changes of its motion and self-adjust, and, as a result, continue to synchronize the B-slave clocks.

Thus, by at minimum the A-clock concept, invariable time-intervals are a reality.

Absolute/universal time was dismissed when theorists, including Albert E, used variable-time intervals, in clocks which are neither motion-sensing/self-adjusting nor synchronized by radio signals from a master clock, as if they had never considered the possibility of an invariable time-interval, and time-dilation appeared to be a reality, which it is for variable time-interval clocks, but which it is not for invariable time-interval clocks.

Summary: When ITIs are used in ITICs, they all function together in the net effect of being int he same reference frame, which is the K zero or Absolute Rest reference frame, because all ITICs, regardless of location and motion, all count/measure the same number of ITIs and therefore all show the same face readings.

When a spaceship's ITIC is returned to Earth and placed next to a similar sister Earth ITIC, then both ITICs show identical face readings/counts/measurements of ITIs and thus they are functioning in the same reference frame, the Absolute Rest or K zero reference frame.

When ITIs are used in ITICs, the entire universe pulses/functions/operates at the same rate and time is everywhere the same.

Jesse

July 3, 2003, 03:13 AM

Bob K:
1. Invariable time-intervals (ITIs) can be created by the use of (A) motion-sensing and self-adjusting clocks or (B) clocks which are synchronized by radio signals from a master clock.
2. Once in motion, the A-clocks will sense changes of motion and self-adjust (and, the reciprocal, if not in motion will sense no change of motion and will not self-adjust--why would they if they are motion-sensing and self-adjusting and sense no change of motion?) and the B-clocks will simply be synchronized when they receive radio signal instructions from their master clock regardless of their change of motion or lack of change of motion, and time everywhere will be the same.

For an A-clock, there is no reference to something else needed--the clock is its own reference for sensed changes/sensed non-changes of its velocity. It would sense the application of a force, the amount of the force, and the duration of a force which accelerates/decelerates it, and during the change of velocity it would self-adjust, which is what motion-sensing and self-adjusting clocks do.

Bob, you're still not addressing the point I made, that even if you use the "A-clocks" the programs on board the clock that adjust them when the clock senses acceleration/gravity will still have to be programmed to adjust them relative to a particular reference frame (even if they are not receiving signals from an object in that frame), and the reference frame you choose is arbitary. You could have A-clocks which adjusted themselves to stay synchronized to clocks at rest relative to the rest frame of center of the milky way galaxy, for example, but you could also have A-clocks which adjusted themselves to stay synchronized to the rest frame of a particle moving at 0.99c relative to the milky way, or to the rest frame of the cosmic background radiation, or an infinite number of other possible inertial frames. And different frames give different definitions of simultenaity--different definitions of what "now" means.

Thus, even if there is a single true "now" as you seem to believe, which we might assume is defined by some sort of "metaphysical preferred reference frame", in the absence of physical effects which pick out a preferred reference frame, it is impossible to construct clocks in such a way that we can be sure that two spatially separated clocks which give the same time-reading are actually synchronized to the true "now" (if there is a single true 'now' in the first place, which I personally think is unlikely). So, if you are honest you must either admit that there is no way to build ITICs besides making a lucky guess about the "metaphysical preferred reference frame" (the most natural guess would be that it's the frame of the cosmic background radiation), or that ITICs would require new discoveries in physics which are unknown at present.

Bob K

July 11, 2003, 02:24 AM

Jesse

Jesse:Bob K, any chance you could address my criticisms from earlier in this thread? I especially would like clarification on your "invariable time interval clocks", since it seems to me they are merely a description of clocks which have been programmed to keep sychronized with a particular reference frame, but unless the choice of which reference frame to use as a basis can be made in a non-arbitrary way, this is a pretty trivial idea that doesn't in any way challenge the relativistic idea that there is no preferred reference frame, and that one's definition of whether two events are "simultaneous" depends on one's reference frame.

In theory, by intuition, once an ITI is chosen and similar ITICs are built and started, then, no matter where they are placed, no matter in what reference frame they are located, time is always the same, universal/absolute time is established, and time-dilation does not happen, and any spacetime which depends upon variable time-intervals, VTIs, as found in variable time-interval clocks, VTICs, which Einstein used (p. 99 of Relativity) to formulate SR/GR, is destroyed.

The proof: When sister ITICs are coordinated by being started simultaneously, and one, a spaceclock, is sent into space, and thereby changes its reference frame, is accelerated/decelerated, and returned to Earth--to the Earth's reference frame, it will show the identical face reading/time measurement as an Earthclock, proving that time has not dilated, and insofar as time is concerned, the reference frame for both ITICs is the same.

Once again, when VTIs in VTICs are used, then, when VTICs are affected by changes of velocity/gravity and their VTIs are changed, their face readings/time measurements will vary from sister VTICs which are not subjected and thereby not affected by changes of velocity/gravity, and time will appear to have dilated.

But when ITIs in ITICs are used, then, when ITICs are subjected to changes of velocity/gravity but their ITIs are NOT changed, their face readings/time measurements will NOT vary from their sister ITICs which are not subjected to changes of velocity/gravity and time will not dilate.

Thus, when ITIs are used in ITICs, the entire universe beats to the ITI time and the entire universe becomes a single giant reference frame.

The identical face-readings of the sister ITICs prove that time dilation has not occurred and that the reference frame for both clocks has not changed and therefore is the same.

Jesse

July 11, 2003, 10:17 AM

Bob K:
In theory, by intuition, once an ITI is chosen and similar ITICs are built and started, then, no matter where they are placed, no matter in what reference frame they are located, time is always the same, universal/absolute time is established, and time-dilation does not happen, and any spacetime which depends upon variable time-intervals, VTIs, as found in variable time-interval clocks, VTICs, which Einstein used (p. 99 of Relativity) to formulate SR/GR, is destroyed.

The proof: When sister ITICs are coordinated by being started simultaneously, and one, a spaceclock, is sent into space, and thereby changes its reference frame, is accelerated/decelerated, and returned to Earth--to the Earth's reference frame, it will show the identical face reading/time measurement as an Earthclock, proving that time has not dilated, and insofar as time is concerned, the reference frame for both ITICs is the same.

It seems like you're missing my point, since your answer did not address my main criticism--namely, how do you choose which reference frame to have the clock be synchronized in? If you choose the reference frame of the earth, then yes, you can program clocks to keep track of their motion relative to the earth and adjust so that they'll still be synchronized in the earth's reference frame. But from the perspective of some other reference frame--say, the reference frame of the cosmic microwave background radiation--these clocks would not by synchronized. One might be reading 12:01:34.5 "at the same moment" that another reads 12:01:34.6, from the perspective of this new reference frame. Of course you could also program the clocks to stay synchronized in the CMBR's frame, but then they would no longer be perfectly synchronized in the frame of the earth.

The point is, even if there is a single true "now" and thus a single truth about whether two events are "simultaneous", in the absence of physical evidence of a preferred reference frame, there's no way to know if you're using the correct reference frame for you ITICs. Maybe you chose to have them synchronized in the frame of the earth while the true meaning of simultaneous is in the frame of the CMBR, for example. Even if you get it right, it'll just have been a lucky guess.

And because the choice of which reference frame you want to have the ITICs synchronized in is completely arbitrary, you certainly can't use them as evidence for the idea that there is a single true "now". An analogy--suppose someone doesn't like the idea that the position of one object can only be defined relative to another object, and he believes in his heart that the universe has a single true "center" which should be treated as the origin for a universal coordinate system, with all other positions defined relative to that center. To support this, he shows that you can build "Invariable Origin Rulers" (IORs) that constantly keep track of their own motion relative to a particular point, and display their direction and distance from that point. Thus, by bringing an IOR to the same location as any other object, you can find that object's location relative to the point.

Now, does this support his idea that the universe has a single true center? Obviously not, because the decision of which point the IORs will measure their distance relative to is totally arbitrary--there's no reason to think there's anything physically special about the point he chooses, no reason to think it's the center of the universe. Even if he was somehow right that the universe had a single true center, it'd just be a lucky guess if he happened to pick it for his IORs.

This is exactly analogous to what is going on with your ITICs. Even if you are somehow right that there is a single truth about whether two events happen "at the same time", you have no way of knowing what this "true" definition of simultaneity really is, so you will just be blindly guessing when you build your ITICs. And just as the possibility of creating IORs does not in any way support the idea that the universe has a single true center, neither does the possibility of creating ITICs in any way support the idea of a single true now.

Bob K:
Thus, when ITIs are used in ITICs, the entire universe beats to the ITI time and the entire universe becomes a single giant reference frame.

Er, but it's your arbitrary choice which reference frame to have them synchronized in.

Bob K:
The identical face-readings of the sister ITICs prove that time dilation has not occurred and that the reference frame for both clocks has not changed and therefore is the same.

They will only give "identical face-readings" in a single reference frame, namely the one that you chose when programming them. In all other reference frames they will not be synchronized. I could program one set of ITICs to be synchronized in the frame of the CMBR, and another set to be synchronized in the frame of a particle moving at 0.99c relative to the CMBR. The clocks in the first set would not be synchronized in the second reference frame, and the clocks in the second set would not be synchronized in the first reference frame. Sorry, but there's no way you can use ITICs to demonstrate the existence of a single true "now".

Bob K

July 11, 2003, 01:10 PM

Jesse:

Bob K:In theory, by intuition, once an ITI is chosen and similar ITICs are built and started, then, no matter where they are placed, no matter in what reference frame they are located, time is always the same, universal/absolute time is established, and time-dilation does not happen, and any spacetime which depends upon variable time-intervals, VTIs, as found in variable time-interval clocks, VTICs, which Einstein used (p. 99 of Relativity) to formulate SR/GR, is destroyed.

The proof: When sister ITICs are coordinated by being started simultaneously, and one, a spaceclock, is sent into space, and thereby changes its reference frame, is accelerated/decelerated, and returned to Earth--to the Earth's reference frame, it will show the identical face reading/time measurement as an Earthclock, proving that time has not dilated, and insofar as time is concerned, the reference frame for both ITICs is the same.

Jesse:It seems like you're missing my point, since your answer did not address my main criticism--namely, how do you choose which reference frame to have the clock be synchronized in? ...

I am confident you do not understand the operational definition of time: Time is the use of a time-interval (TI) for the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events.

The key herein to understanding time is the time-interval, the TI.

The TI is the unit of measurement of time, the unit of the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events.

When invariable time-intervals, ITIs, are used, the TI is the same everywhere regardless which reference frame in which the ITI was selected, regardless of the reference frame in which ITICs were constructed/started/synchronized, regardless of changes of reference frames, regardless of changes to reference frames, regardless of changes of velocity/gravity density to invariable-time-interval clocks, ITICs, and regardless of the reference frames in which the ITICs are placed/located, the TIs, being ITIs, never vary (how could they vary if they are invariable???), the ITICs all function/operate at the same rate of functioning/operation, the ITICs all measure/count the same number of ITIs, hence the ITICs all show the same face-readings/time-measurements/time-counts/etc, and time is not dilated, time is independent of space, and, hence, spacetime is destroyed regardless of the number of, and credentials of, physics gurus/physics Jesuses who whine and snivel and complain and deny/evade/obfuscate/attack.

Pick any ITI you want provided it is small enough to be useful, howsoever �small� and �useful� may be defined [ITIs of days/month/years/etc, may be too big to be useful/not small enough to be useful].

Construct ITICs in any reference frame you want.

Start and synchronize the ITICs in any reference frame you want.

Regardless of where they are synchronized, regardless of where they are placed/located, the ITICs, because of their ITIs, will always count the precise same number of ITIs, thus everywhere in the universe time is the same--the face-readings/time-measurements/count of each and every ITIC is the same as all other ITICs.

Jesse:The point is, even if there is a single true "now" and thus a single truth about whether two events are "simultaneous", in the absence of physical evidence of a preferred reference frame, there's no way to know if you're using the correct reference frame for your ITICs. ...

There is no preferred reference frame.

The ITI in ITICs eliminates differences between/among reference frames, therefore there is only one reference frame for the entire universe when time is measured by ITIs in ITICs.

Jesse:And because the choice of which reference frame you want to have the ITICs synchronized in is completely arbitrary, you certainly can't use them as evidence for the idea that there is a single true "now". ... [The IOR analogy is of no help/usefulness herein.]

... Even if you are somehow right that there is a single truth about whether two events happen "at the same time", you have no way of knowing what this "true" definition of simultaneity really is, so you will just be blindly guessing when you build your ITICs. ...

The true definition of simultaneity is the use of ITIs in ITICs to measure/count the ITIs and to define specific timepoints at which events observed to be occurring are simultaneous with each other and all other events observed to be occurring at the same timepoints.

More information on simultaneity is provided below.

Bob K:Thus, when ITIs are used in ITICs, the entire universe beats to the ITI time and the entire universe becomes a single giant reference frame.

Jesse:Er, but it's your arbitrary choice which reference frame to have them synchronized in.

Go er yourself!!! [Humor intended, not a personal attack! What would you do if you were to er yourself?]

Regardless of ANY reference frame, once the ITICs are started/synchronized, then, because of their ITIs, they all function/operate at the same rate of functioning/operation and T = T for K, K�, K��, K��, and, therefore, K = K� = K�� = K�� ..., etc.

Bob K:The identical face-readings of the sister ITICs prove that time dilation has not occurred and that the reference frame for both clocks has not changed and therefore is the same.

Jesse:They will only give "identical face-readings" in a single reference frame, namely the one that you chose when programming them. In all other reference frames they will not be synchronized. ... Sorry, but there's no way you can use ITICs to demonstrate the existence of a single true "now".

Suppose you have ITICs spread out throughout the clumps of matter/eneregy present in the universe.

Suppose you had cameras located close enough to events such the that time-delay from the transmission of light is negligible, and for all practical purposes, the taking of a photograph would not be affected by time-delays from the transmission of light from the objects/events being photographed.

Suppose you could coordinate the taking of time-stamped photographs of events close to ITICs/ITIC-controlled cameras (ITIC-Cams) by synchronizing the ITIC-Cams to tkae a photo at a single specified timepoint, whatever that timepoint might be. Each ITIC-Cam thus takes a photo and time-stamps it with the ITIC�s face-reading/time-measurement/count.

Suppose that it is possible in a reasonable amount of ITIC time to collect in one place/location/reference frame/etc. all the time-stamped photos taken by the ITIC-Cams and to compare their time-stamps.

What would we find?

We would find that ALL time-stamped photos show the SAME/IDENTICAL time-stamp, i.e., all photos were in fact taken at the same time, at the same timepoint.

And those events which were photographed at the same timepoint would be simultaneous with each other regardless of reference frames or any other potential confusions and nonsense.

I.E., �where?� events are simultaneous is irrelevant to �when?� events are simultaneous, and �when?� simultaneity can only be established by TIs, preferrably ITIs in ITICs/ITIC-Cams.

In short, relativity re: time is destroyed when ITIs are used for ITICs and ITICs are specified to be used for the development of physics theories.

Einstein specified the use of variable time-intervals (VTIs) in variable time-interval clocks (VTICs) as per his own words on page 99 in his own book, Relativity.

When you challenge someone�s theory/conclusions, you challenge his premises.

I have challenged Einstein�s premise of using VTIs in VITCs for his development of SR/GR and his conclusion that time is dilated when VTICs experience changes of velocity/gravity density by showing that ITIs exist and can be used in ITICs and when so used the ITIs in the ITICs eliminate time differences/time-dilations in any and all reference frames and therefore Time/T = T� = T�� = T�� etc. and Reference Frame K = K�� = K�� etc. for T.

Jesse:... [ITICs do not] support the idea of a single true now.

ITIs in ITICs define what is a Now, what is a true Now.

The matter/energy of the universe is a finite quantity, because the m/e of the universe is a closed m/e system from which m/e cannot be taken (where would it go?) and into which m/e cannot be added (from where would it come?).

The m/e of the universe will have a single configuration (config), a single Now, which will be a pattern or arrangement of the things/objects comprised of m/e, at any timepoint when time is defined by ITIs in ITICs.

The Now at any timepoint is thus linked to the timepoint itself, thus the physical reality which is the m/e of the universe can be linked to time, the temporal reality of the universe, at timepoints defined by ITIs in ITICs.

Thus, for any timepoint, there is a single/one-and-only Now m/e config.

NialScorva

July 11, 2003, 01:29 PM

Bob.

I put one of your ITICs on a shelf in my space ship. I use it to determine that it takes 1 second for a ball to fall from a certain distance and that it takes 1 second for a certain chemical reaction to take place. I then accelerate to 0.86 times the speed of light and just coast. Your clock adjusts itself to maintain universal time.

I drop the ball, and using your clock to measure, it will take 0.5 seconds to do the exact same thing. The chemical reaction will take 0.5 seconds by your clock. I will *age* 1 second for every 2 seconds that elapse on your clock. In other words, your clock will be running at twice the speed it should be and will give wrong results for every single measurement that I do on my ship.

How is this useful?

edit:

What you are saying is sorta like flying to Europe and still living on the EST time zone. Sunrise isn't going to come in your arbitrarily defined morning, though.

Jesse

July 11, 2003, 02:58 PM

Bob K:
Suppose you have ITICs spread out throughout the clumps of matter/eneregy present in the universe.

Suppose you had cameras located close enough to events such the that time-delay from the transmission of light is negligible, and for all practical purposes, the taking of a photograph would not be affected by time-delays from the transmission of light from the objects/events being photographed.

Suppose you could coordinate the taking of time-stamped photographs of events close to ITICs/ITIC-controlled cameras (ITIC-Cams) by synchronizing the ITIC-Cams to tkae a photo at a single specified timepoint, whatever that timepoint might be. Each ITIC-Cam thus takes a photo and time-stamps it with the ITIC�s face-reading/time-measurement/count.

Suppose that it is possible in a reasonable amount of ITIC time to collect in one place/location/reference frame/etc. all the time-stamped photos taken by the ITIC-Cams and to compare their time-stamps.

What would we find?

We would find that ALL time-stamped photos show the SAME/IDENTICAL time-stamp, i.e., all photos were in fact taken at the same time, at the same timepoint.

No Bob, you've failed to understand the basics of relativity. Suppose I have a system of rulers spread throughout the universe, and clocks at various intervals on these rulers. I can see whether clocks are "synchronized" in my reference frame by looking at the light from each clock, looking at its position on the rulers to see its distance, and then figuring out how long it would take light to get from the clock to me. For example, if at this moment my clock says 3 pm, and I'm seeing a clock 1-light-hour away saying 2 pm, and another clock 3-light-hours away saying 12 pm, I know all the clocks are synchronized in my reference frame. With me so far?

What relativity says is that using this same method of figuring out simultaneity, observers in different reference frames will not agree on whether two events are simultaneous. For me, if I see the 1-light-hour-distant clock strike 12 when my clock strikes 1, and the 3-light-hour-distant clock strike 12 when my clock strikes 3, I can say that all three clocks struck 12 "simultaneously". But an observer moving at some velocity relative to me may also look at the light he receives from various clocks at various times, use their distance to figure out how long ago the events he's seeing took place, and conclude that the three clocks struck 12 at different times in his frame. This is a consequence of a combination of length contraction (a ruler which one observer measures as 12 inches may only look 11 inches to another observer) and the fact that light appears to move at the same velocity in all frames. If you'd like I can work out an actual detailed example showing exactly why an observer moving at a different velocity could look at the same three clocks and say they're not synchronized, or you can just take my word for it.

Thus, there is no definition of "synchronized" that all observers can agree on. Two clocks which are synchronized in one reference frame will not be in other frames. In programming your ITICs you must make an arbitrary choice about which frame the clocks will stay synchronized in, so they cannot be used to prove the existence of a single unique "now".

Wyz_sub10

July 11, 2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by NialScorva
Bob.

I put one of your ITICs on a shelf in my space ship. I use it to determine that it takes 1 second for a ball to fall from a certain distance and that it takes 1 second for a certain chemical reaction to take place. I then accelerate to 0.86 times the speed of light and just coast. Your clock adjusts itself to maintain universal time.

I drop the ball, and using your clock to measure, it will take 0.5 seconds to do the exact same thing. The chemical reaction will take 0.5 seconds by your clock. I will *age* 1 second for every 2 seconds that elapse on your clock. In other words, your clock will be running at twice the speed it should be and will give wrong results for every single measurement that I do on my ship.

How is this useful?

edit:

What you are saying is sorta like flying to Europe and still living on the EST time zone. Sunrise isn't going to come in your arbitrarily defined morning, though.

I agree. It seems that Bob K is arguing that time dilation will not happen.

Rather, the effects of time dilation will absolutely happen, they simply would not be measured.

Bob K

July 22, 2003, 04:40 AM

NialScorva

NS:I put one of your ITICs on a shelf in my space ship. I use it to determine that it takes 1 second for a ball to fall from a certain distance and that it takes 1 second for a certain chemical reaction to take place. I then accelerate to 0.86 times the speed of light and just coast. Your clock adjusts itself to maintain universal time.

I drop the ball, and using your clock to measure, it will take 0.5 seconds to do the exact same thing. The chemical reaction will take 0.5 seconds by your clock. I will *age* 1 second for every 2 seconds that elapse on your clock. In other words, your clock will be running at twice the speed it should be and will give wrong results for every single measurement that I do on my ship.

What actually happens is that your physiological/biological rate of functioning/operation slows down vis � vis universal time measured by ITICs.

The same for physical/chemical reactions.

Vis � vis time measured by VTICs, your rate of functioning/operation does not slow down.

But when you arrive back upon Earth and you compare your VTIC with a sister Earth-bound VTIC and you compare yourself with your Earth-bound twin brother, then you notice differences which by inference suggest that time has slowed while you were in space, but the proper explanation is that your rate of functioning/operation slowed while you were accelerated.

I want you to respond to this scenario: When ITIs are used for ITICs, all ITICs using the same ITIs will show the same/identical face-reading/time-measurement regardless of changes of velocity/gravity density.

Example: When an ITIC is sent into space and therefore accelerated/subjected to a change of velocity, and returned to Earth and compared to a sister ITIC using the same ITI, then the face-readings/time-measurement of the spaceship ITIC will be the same as/identical to the face-reading/time-measurement of the Earth ITIC.

Is time dilated herein?

Is time not dilated herein?

When Einstein used VTIs in VTICs, he got a different face-reading/time-measurement for a VTIC sent into space aboard a spaceship and therefore subjected to changes of velocity when returned to Earth and compared to a sister VTIC--the spaceship�s VTIC showed a lesser face-reading/time-measurement than the Earth-bound VTIC.

Einstein then claimed that time had been dilated by the acceleration of the VTIC aboard the spaceship.

When you challenge someone�s theory and his conclusions you challenge his premises.

Einstein used VTIs in VTICs for the standard of time-measurement for a premise for the development of SR/GR (he stated that he used VTIs in VTICs for SR/GR on p. 99 of his book, Relativity), and concluded that time is dilated when VTICs are accelerated and VTIs shorten in duration.

I challenge his use of VTIs in VTICs for a premise--i.e., I challenge his premise.

I challenge the use of VTIs in VTICs by asking what happens when ITIs are used in ITICs, and what conclusions we draw when SR/GR is reworked using ITIs in ITICs.

My conclusion is that when we find the spaceship-driven ITIC shows the same/identical face-reading/time-measurement as a sister/identical Earth-bound ITIC, then time has not dilated.

Do not assume that I am claiming that the rates of functioning/operation of organisms and machines do not slow down (compared to what?) when the organisms/machines are accelerated or enter a denser gravitational field--i.e., when the machines/organisms are subjected to changes of velocity/gravity density.

In fact I recognize that the rates of functioning/operation of organisms/machines do in fact slow down when the organisms/machines are subjected to changes of velocity/gravity density.

Here�s what happens:

1. At a zero velocity/gravity density organisms/machines have a rate of functioning/operation resulting from finite quantities of energy available to provide forces necessary for the changes of inertial states of the organism�s atoms/molecules which comprise the organism�s chemistry/which comprise the machine�s parts and which thus provide the rate of functioning/operation.

2. When an organism/machine is accelerated/enters a denser gravitational field, the acceleration/denser gravity increases the inertial mass of the atoms/molecules of the organism/machine and if the organism/machine is not able to muster additional energy to provide additional force to overcome the increased inertial mass of its atoms/molecules, then its rate of functioning/operation will slow down compared to its rate of functioning/operation under conditions of zero velocity/gravity density.

3. Rates of functioning/operation are defined and described as a number per a unit of time--so many beats per minute for a human heart, so many cycles per minute/second for a machine.

When a VTI is used in a VTIC the unit of time-measurement, and a VTIC aboard a spaceship slows down and its VTI is lengthened/increased in duration when the VTIC/spaceship is accelerated/enters a denser gravitational field, then its rate of functioning/operation slows down in concord with the slowing down of the rates of functioning/operation of organisms/machines aboard the same spaceship. Note that as the VTIC slows its rate of functioning in concord with the slowing down of the rates of functioning/operation of all other organisms/machines aboard the spaceship its face-reading will show what appears to be the same rate of operation per minute of the organisms/machines, i.e., aboard the spaceship, there is the observation/appearance of no time-dilation when the spaceship/VTIC is accelerated/enters a denser gravitational field. Observers present in the spaceship are thus organisms which change their rate of functioning/operation when subjected to the same changes of velocity/gravity as machines including VTICs aboard the spaceship, and their subjective observation of the rates of functioning/operation of themselves as well as other organisms and machines will suggest that there has been no slowing down of any rates of functioning/operation of any organism/machine, but this observation will be an illusion due to the objective fact that the rates of functioning/operation of all organisms/machines aboard the spaceship will decrease, but will only decrease relative to/compared to the unit of measurement, the ITI, of an ITIC, or to the VTI of a VTIC which is not subjected to changes of velocity/gravity, as would an Earth-bound sister VTIC.

If a spaceship is to make a turn at a specific physical point in space of a specific physical distance from the Earth or from its point of origin, then either the spaceship has to be using a timepoint determined by an on-board clock or a radio signal from a master clock outside the spaceship.

If the timepoint is determined by a VTIC, which slows its rate of functioning/operation when accelerated, and its face readings/time-measurements/timepoints will not be in concord with face-readings/time-measurements/timepoints of non-accelerated sister VTICs, then the timepoint measured by the spaceship-driven VTIC will not be in concord with the physical point at which the spaceship must make its turn, but if the timepoint is determined either (A) by a sister VTIC or an ITIC using an ITI which is identical to the VTI in the VTIC in the reference frame from which the spaceship was launched and a radio signal is sent to initiate the turning procedure or (B) by an ITIC aboard the spaceship (1) which will adjust itself to maintain universal time/absolute time in concord with all other sister ITICs using the same ITI and (2) which will present the proper timepoints necessary for spaceship navigation, then the proper timepoint is maintained and the spaceship will make the turn as necessary.

I.e., ITIs used in ITICs will be useful for spaceship navigation when VTICs aboard spaceships cannot be coordinated with non-accelerated VTICs. Because all ITICs set with the same ITIs will show identical face-readings/time-measurements/timepoints, then their measurement of universal time will become useful in spaceship navigation.