Ed The dilation of time dilemma

jonathancollins said:
From your response you clearly don't understand my point. There is no known way to observe time directly but only in terms of other events. A ruler can be used to measure the length of an object that exists (i.e. it can be directly observed by sight and touch) in terms of another object that exists (viz the ruler).
Click to expand...

This is rather confused. The methods used to measure "length" are very closely related to those used to measure "time". Your invocation of "sight and touch" shows a reliance on vague intuition which I don't think holds up under scrutiny---the process of measuring the spatial-length of something, or of comparing two spatial-lengths, is indeed a sequence of events (not that you think of it as such in casual daily experience, but one must do if one is being precise) and these are conceptually identical to the sorts of events used to measure time.

Any of your objections to "time" as a real thing could equally be applied to "heights" or "distances north-south" or "distances east-west".

In our Universe, distinguishing one event from another requires four coordinates. That's a fact and there are various ways to demonstrate it. Three of those coordinates behave in one way and one behaves differently (in a clearly measurable way)---this leads to three of them being called "3 dimensions of space" and the fourth being called "time", but does not provide any basis for calling three of them real and one fake.

If you are tempted to call "time" dimensions fake or a mistake or a metaphenomenon, while persisting in calling "space" dimensions real or correct or fundamental, then you will run into the (basic, measurable) fact that two indisputably real events get their time-labels and space-labels mixed up differently by different observers.
 
My vague intuition is that both time and space get shorter and longer. When I'm carrying a heavy object, otherwise short distances seem impossibly long. When I'm waiting in line, time stretches out. In other situations, both seem shorter than normal.

I also feel those experiences are relative to me, and others nearby may not perceive them the same way. Pretty much just as relativity says, only without any square roots.
 
marplots said:
My vague intuition is that both time and space get shorter and longer. When I'm carrying a heavy object, otherwise short distances seem impossibly long. When I'm waiting in line, time stretches out. In other situations, both seem shorter than normal.

I also feel those experiences are relative to me, and others nearby may not perceive them the same way. Pretty much just as relativity says, only without any square roots.
Click to expand...

9909953816_e8cecebfc3_n.jpg
 
WaterBreather said:
The computer cannot process A>B ... AND ... B>A
Click to expand...

WaterBreather,

It's easy to get to this conclusion, but the correct one (in Special Relativity) is:
A1 > B1 AND B2 > A2

A1 and A2 are the same if we use Newton/Galilean Transformations, but not in Special Relativity/Lorentz Transformations. In Special Relativity, time is relative to the frame of reference. So the value of A is not the same in both reference frames. You can use the Lorentz transformations to convert them to the same frame. In that case, you can compare the converted values.

Unfortunately, this does not result in a simple rate conversion. A simple rate conversion would be nice for a computer simulation and would make the calculations a lot easier, but the Lorentz transformations are a bit more complicated than the Galilean transformations. As some already mentioned, this e.g. results in events not happening at the 'same time' in different reference frames. That is really a show stopper for an 'objective' computer simulation. (By the way, I think that your use of 'objective' is what others would call 'absolute')

What is possible, is to choose a reference frame and make a simulation for that reference frame. Choosing another reference frame will yield another simulation.
 
jonathancollins said:
There is no known way to observe time directly but only in terms of other events. ...
Click to expand...
Wrong, jonathancollins, .
I can look at a clock and see time being measured in as directly a way as looking at the ends of a ruler and seeing distance being measured. The clock and ruler physically exist. The clock and ruler were invented by human beings.

You missed my point: The existence of space and time is an assumption that underlies all of physics. No space and you cannot measure distances. No time and you cannot measure times.
No space or time and you cannot do physics!

That a concept is "disconcerting" to someone does not mean that it is wrong.
 
jonathancollins said:
Hi Kid eager. Where in my alternative explanation of the consequences of special relativity do you feel that am I disregarding maths and science?

What specific points of my explanation would in your view be invalidated by science and maths?
Click to expand...

Excellent use of copy paste here!!!! And in my friendliest manner, I must remind you of a technical problem for you. The established physics involving time have been verified, mathed, tested within the limits of such and within my experience overturned by no one. Nothing you have posted here seems to have changed my mind or anyone elses. Could you possibly post cites of your professional journal publications/papers for us so we can see your work in its fullness.

Thanks ever so much,
fuelair:)
 
There are three definitions of time : the passing of an event / the distance between events / the passing
of a thought. And an event is defined as a point in spacetime. Time could be described too as that which
space is expanding in to. Photons travel through time but do not experience it as such. From an external
frame of reference it appears that they do. But from their own internal frame of reference how ever they
do not. Now it is debatable whether time really does go forward or not. Or whether that is just subjective
human interpretation. But all three arrows do go forward : thermodynamic / cosmological / psychological

Stephen Hawking has suggested that it is possible in theory for the cosmological and thermodynamic arrows of
of time to go backward though not the psychological arrow. This is because it is biologically impossible for life to
exist in a universe in which time went backward. Because some biological functions are non commutative. Which
is to say they can only go one way. So if a multiverse for example existed in which time did go backward it would
have no life in it at all. As the principle of cause and effect would be violated if it did. So something cannot happen
before the thing that causes it to happen. This is both logically and physically impossible. Although having said that
it could still be possible as the laws of physics would not be exactly the same in that universe as they are in this one
 
Last edited:
ben m said:
This is rather confused. The methods used to measure "length" are very closely related to those used to measure "time". Your invocation of "sight and touch" shows a reliance on vague intuition which I don't think holds up under scrutiny---the process of measuring the spatial-length of something, or of comparing two spatial-lengths, is indeed a sequence of events (not that you think of it as such in casual daily experience, but one must do if one is being precise) and these are conceptually identical to the sorts of events used to measure time.

Any of your objections to "time" as a real thing could equally be applied to "heights" or "distances north-south" or "distances east-west".

In our Universe, distinguishing one event from another requires four coordinates. That's a fact and there are various ways to demonstrate it. Three of those coordinates behave in one way and one behaves differently (in a clearly measurable way)---this leads to three of them being called "3 dimensions of space" and the fourth being called "time", but does not provide any basis for calling three of them real and one fake.

If you are tempted to call "time" dimensions fake or a mistake or a metaphenomenon, while persisting in calling "space" dimensions real or correct or fundamental, then you will run into the (basic, measurable) fact that two indisputably real events get their time-labels and space-labels mixed up differently by different observers.
Click to expand...
It is proving to be quite challenging to clarify the point I am making!

By your comment "Your invocation of sight and touch shows a reliance on vague intuition which I don't think holds up under scrutiny" you imply that sight and touch are intuitive rather than real and that human senses are not reliable in registering events as the evidence for formulating a coherent understanding of the universe that we inhabit. If not through the invocation of our senses how else can we interpret the universe? You may as well then abandon any attempt of interpretation of (for example) a point of light on the screen in the 2 slits experiment due to the untrustworthiness of the human eye (and by implication the brain to which it feeds its sensory input).

An object (for example a rock) exists in that it can be seen and felt directly using our sensory organs; that is a fact (not vague intuition) subject to the caveat that our sensory organs are not deluding us. If our senses are in fact deluding us then any measurements we make are objectively meaningless and the notion of any "fact" collapses.

In that an object exists and can be perceived by our sensory organs to protrude into all perceivable directions it follows (subject to the caveat above) that the object must exist in a 3 dimensional space. There is no evidence in this observation that would imply time as a fourth dimension.

Time cannot be seen or felt. That is a fact. It follows that time can only be notionally observed in terms of quantities of events involving objects that exist in a 3 dimensional space. That is also a fact.

You state "In our Universe, distinguishing one event from another requires four coordinates. That's a fact and there are various ways to demonstrate it.". I disagree, it only requires 3 coordinates. For example I can drop 2 objects inside a vacuum tube from the same height and observe them both coming to rest on the ground. The coordinates of the objects at rest are A,B,C and X,Y,Z respectively. Although I can additionally choose to observe a third event such as a ticking clock there is no requirement to do this in order for the 2 events to be observed.

You state “If you are tempted to call "time" dimensions fake or a mistake or a metaphenomenon, while persisting in calling "space" dimensions real or correct or fundamental, then you will run into the (basic, measurable) fact that two indisputably real events get their time-labels and space-labels mixed up differently by different observers.”. On the premise that Time doesn’t exist the notion of time labels becomes meaningless. The observations predicted by special relativity will be the same but the explanations for the observations will no longer be in terms of time dilation.
 
Reality Check said:
Wrong, jonathancollins, .
I can look at a clock and see time being measured in as directly a way as looking at the ends of a ruler and seeing distance being measured. The clock and ruler physically exist. The clock and ruler were invented by human beings.

You missed my point: The existence of space and time is an assumption that underlies all of physics. No space and you cannot measure distances. No time and you cannot measure times.
No space or time and you cannot do physics!

That a concept is "disconcerting" to someone does not mean that it is wrong.
Click to expand...
Please see my response to Ben M which might help clarify my point.
 
Hi fuelair. Please see my response to Ben M which might help clarify my point.

You state that “The established physics involving time have been verified, mathed, tested within the limits of such and within my experience overturned by no one”. I would agree to the extent of calculations “involving” time as one of several variables. That is not the same thing as verifying the independent existence of time. To my knowledge no experimental evidence exists for the existence of time (as opposed to the unquestionable existence of matter, energy and space) as a fundamental existential part of the universe (i.e. something that actually flows). The consequences predicted by Special relativity and upheld by observations are also upheld in my alternative explanation so there does not appear to be any technical problem thus far (but I am aware that someone working in this field may yet raise a technical objection). This is a difficult area and there is not yet an experiment devised that could prove or disprove the existence of time. I am naturally interested in any technical issue/s raised with respect to my alternative explanation which is published on-line but cannot be included here until I have made 15 posts on this forum (I will post the URL as soon as permitted).

Thank you for your interest.
 
jonathancollins said:
[snip] I am naturally interested in any technical issue/s raised with respect to my alternative explanation which is published on-line but cannot be included here until I have made 15 posts on this forum (I will post the URL as soon as permitted). [snip]
Click to expand...
If you post a link similar to "MyForbiddenURL DOT SomeInternetPlace DOT com", most of us would be happy to linkify it for you until you get your required number of posts.

CT
 
jonathancollins said:
It is proving to be quite challenging to clarify the point I am making!

By your comment "Your invocation of sight and touch shows a reliance on vague intuition which I don't think holds up under scrutiny" you imply that sight and touch are intuitive rather than real and that human senses are not reliable in registering events as the evidence for formulating a coherent understanding of the universe that we inhabit. If not through the invocation of our senses how else can we interpret the universe?
Click to expand...

No, what I mean is that "sight" is actually a series of events with particular spatial and time relationships to each other---"a photon is emitted by atom X and the photon is detected by cell Y". Physicists are very good at doing careful, mathematically-precise accounting for the distribution, ordering, and coordinate-labeling of events in a way that precisely accounts for the "senses".

Any casual treatment of the senses---a sort of "this is what it feels like in my head" version rather than a "this is what the photons did" version---will be extremely error-prone compared to standard, careful, systematic methods. Unless you think that your eyes work in some way other than detecting photons striking different cells?

You may as well then abandon any attempt of interpretation of (for example) a point of light on the screen in the 2 slits experiment due to the untrustworthiness of the human eye (and by implication the brain to which it feeds its sensory input).
Click to expand...

Not at all. I am not saying "ignore input".

In that an object exists and can be perceived by our sensory organs to protrude into all perceivable directions it follows (subject to the caveat above) that the object must exist in a 3 dimensional space. There is no evidence in this observation that would imply time as a fourth dimension.
Click to expand...

Sure, I can perceive time as a dimension.

11:00:00 AM. I reach to the right and touch air.
11:00:30 AM. I reach to the right and touch a coffee cup. I can feel some locations where coffee-cup-matter is present, and other locations where it's not. I conclude that the 3D shape is a cylinder.
11:01:00 AM. I reach to the right and touch air.

The cup was bounded in both space and time. I was able to feel its "edges" along the time axis, because there were some coordinates where there was not cup-material and there were some coordinates where cup-material was present. That's the time axis, perceived with the sense of touch.
 
H.G. Wells gave a good explanation of why time is a dimension in The Time Machine; it's years since I read it, but I recall grasping for the first time that a physical object has height, width, length and duration - an object must have a non-zero duration to exist.

Of course we perceive time very differently to the other dimensions because our consciousness moves along it, but that doesn't mean it necessarily is very different.
 
jonathancollins said:
Please see my response to Ben M which might help clarify my point.
Click to expand...
It does - you have the idea that time does not exist except in terms of other things because "Time cannot be seen or felt".
That is not what science says. If something can be measured then it exists. Time can be measured thus it exists and has the same level of existence as other measurable things such a space.

Our senses cannot detect most of the universe but we detect most of the universe because we have things called brains :D!

jonathancollins: Look at your hand. It contains protons. Protons contain quarks. No one has seen a quark. No one has felt a quark. But the evidence is overwhelming that they exist.

jonathancollins: Look at your hand. There are billions of neutrinos per second going through your hand.
Do you think that neutrinos do not exist because you cannot see them?
Do you think that neutrinos do not exist because you cannot feel them?

jonathancollins: Look at the night sky. There are billions of galaxies that you do not see or feel. Do they exist?
 
Last edited:
Jonathancollins, at the very top left corner of each post on this forum, just to the right of a small rounded box, there is a series of characters. A typical example is, "19th August 2015, 10:36 PM."

If you look at multiple posts in any thread, you'll see that this string of characters is usually different for each post (with only rare exceptions where posts adjacent to one another on the page all have the same string). Can you explain why the strings differ?
 
jonathancollins said:
An object (for example a rock) exists in that it can be seen and felt directly using our sensory organs; that is a fact (not vague intuition) subject to the caveat that our sensory organs are not deluding us. If our senses are in fact deluding us then any measurements we make are objectively meaningless and the notion of any "fact" collapses.
Click to expand...

A falling rock exists just as much as a non-falling rock. Those that claim that momentum is an illusion are destined to be squashed by it.

Time cannot be seen or felt. That is a fact. It follows that time can only be notionally observed in terms of quantities of events involving objects that exist in a 3 dimensional space. That is also a fact.
Click to expand...

Time cannot be seen or felt in the same sense that distance can be seen or felt. A challenge you to see or feel "1 meter".
 
Myriad said:
Jonathancollins, at the very top left corner of each post on this forum, just to the right of a small rounded box, there is a series of characters. A typical example is, "19th August 2015, 10:36 PM."

If you look at multiple posts in any thread, you'll see that this string of characters is usually different for each post (with only rare exceptions where posts adjacent to one another on the page all have the same string). Can you explain why the strings differ?
Click to expand...
Yes because the computer code that drives the program includes a routine to increment a binary number that is converted to ASCII characters on the screen to representative a date and time according to the current conventions of date and time. That doesn't mean that time exists other than as a human construct.

I could equally write code to generate the name of an alien creature from a small planetary system in the galaxy of Andromeda as "JITHYSAURUS LEX" but that doesn't mean such a creature exists!

Do you follow my point?
 
RussDill said:
A falling rock exists just as much as a non-falling rock. Those that claim that momentum is an illusion are destined to be squashed by it.



Time cannot be seen or felt in the same sense that distance can be seen or felt. A challenge you to see or feel "1 meter".
Click to expand...
I can take a 1 metre ruler (real tangible object A) and hold it against a rock (real tangible object B) such that I am feeling and seeing both the ruler and the 1 metre length of rock.

I cannot see or feel time.

The difficulty with grasping this is that the notion of time is deeply embedded into our culture. One must think about time from first principles ignoring what has been ingrained by society.

The notion of time in human society would have initially been conceived as a crude dividing line between night and day which is merely the observation of repeating events (sunrise and sunset) that segregate (practically) the activities of hunting and sleeping.
 
jonathancollins said:
Yes because the computer code that drives the program includes a routine to increment a binary number that is converted to ASCII characters on the screen to representative a date and time according to the current conventions of date and time. That doesn't mean that time exists other than as a human construct.
...
Click to expand...

But can you identify the difference between two unequal strings, apart from any difference in occurring characters?
What difference, apart from any difference in occurring characters, do the two following unequal strings represent?

4th August 2015, 02:21 PM
4th August 2015, 02:23 PM
 
jonathancollins said:
I can take a 1 metre ruler (real tangible object A) and hold it against a rock (real tangible object B) such that I am feeling and seeing both the ruler and the 1 metre length of rock.

I cannot see or feel time.

The difficulty with grasping this is that the notion of time is deeply embedded into our culture. One must think about time from first principles ignoring what has been ingrained by society.

The notion of time in human society would have initially been conceived as a crude dividing line between night and day which is merely the observation of repeating events (sunrise and sunset) that segregate (practically) the activities of hunting and sleeping.
Click to expand...

You can, in fact, feel time. Not with your physical sense of touch, but you have a "hidden" sense of the passage of time. If you could not, you would have no way to identify the separation of events, such as the delay between the pressing of keys on the keyboard and when the characters appear on the screen. A clock, then, is a mechanical or electronic device that measures the distance between two repeatable events (a spring-driven ticking mechanism, the oscillations of an energized quartz crystal) across a dimension we refer to as "time".
 
jonathancollins said:
I can take a 1 metre ruler (real tangible object A) and hold it against a rock (real tangible object B) such that I am feeling and seeing both the ruler and the 1 metre length of rock.

I cannot see or feel time.
Click to expand...

That's because there is this big rock in your way.
 
jonathancollins said:
whatswaving dot weebly dot com slash an-alternative-interpretation-of-the-consequences-of-special-relativity dot html
Click to expand...
This is you repeating philosophical arguments as if they were science, jonathancollins.
For example ignoring the facts that we measure time and know of the existence of things we can neither see or feel.

Sorry, jonathancollins, but An alternative interpretation of the consequences of Special Relativity is not really "The pursuit of truth through observation and reasoning". Scientists pursue "truth" by observing the universe and creating scientific theories to match what they observe.

This web page starts with an error:
Reality Check said:
"The observation that high speed Muons last longer than Muons at rest could be interpreted in 2 ways:" is wrong. The observation that high speed muons last longer than muons at rest according to an external observer can only be interpreted in one way: That observers measure time dilation.
Click to expand...
There is a demand for "direct evidence" that time exists. All measurements of time are that direct evidence just like all measurements of distances are direct evidence for space.

Quantum particles actually decay without any known external influences, jonathancollins: Particle decay. Spontaneous process does not mean "spontaneous" process!
 
Last edited:
jonathancollins said:
I can take a 1 metre ruler (real tangible object A) and hold it against a rock (real tangible object B) such that I am feeling and seeing both the ruler and the 1 metre length of rock.

I cannot see or feel time.
Click to expand...

You assume you are measuring distance. All you've done is compare the end points of the rock and the ruler. It's no different than how we measure time.
 
jonathancollins said:
Yes because the computer code that drives the program includes a routine to increment a binary number that is converted to ASCII characters on the screen to representative a date and time according to the current conventions of date and time. That doesn't mean that time exists other than as a human construct.

I could equally write code to generate the name of an alien creature from a small planetary system in the galaxy of Andromeda as "JITHYSAURUS LEX" but that doesn't mean such a creature exists!

Do you follow my point?
Click to expand...


I follow, but you've gone the wrong direction with my point. I wasn't talking about the encoded meanings of the strings which are of course a human invention. I'm talking about the fact that the strings are different for different posts.

Given that the same program on the same machine is generating the string for every post (which is all true), why do different posts have different strings? Can you explain that without implicitly positing a change of state of something, and consequently time (defined as the dimension of the separation between the different observed states)?
 
Myriad said:
I follow, but you've gone the wrong direction with my point. I wasn't talking about the encoded meanings of the strings which are of course a human invention. I'm talking about the fact that the strings are different for different posts.

Given that the same program on the same machine is generating the string for every post (which is all true), why do different posts have different strings? Can you explain that without implicitly positing a change of state of something, and consequently time (defined as the dimension of the separation between the different observed states)?
Click to expand...

You are completely correct in everything you posted here, except for one thing. But that one thing turns out to be the most important one of all.

You assumed that this thread deserves serious responses.
 
ben m said:
No, what I mean is that "sight" is actually a series of events with particular spatial and time relationships to each other---"a photon is emitted by atom X and the photon is detected by cell Y". Physicists are very good at doing careful, mathematically-precise accounting for the distribution, ordering, and coordinate-labeling of events in a way that precisely accounts for the "senses".

Any casual treatment of the senses---a sort of "this is what it feels like in my head" version rather than a "this is what the photons did" version---will be extremely error-prone compared to standard, careful, systematic methods. Unless you think that your eyes work in some way other than detecting photons striking different cells?



Not at all. I am not saying "ignore input".



Sure, I can perceive time as a dimension.

11:00:00 AM. I reach to the right and touch air.
11:00:30 AM. I reach to the right and touch a coffee cup. I can feel some locations where coffee-cup-matter is present, and other locations where it's not. I conclude that the 3D shape is a cylinder.
11:01:00 AM. I reach to the right and touch air.

The cup was bounded in both space and time. I was able to feel its "edges" along the time axis, because there were some coordinates where there was not cup-material and there were some coordinates where cup-material was present. That's the time axis, perceived with the sense of touch.
Click to expand...
You are basing the existence of time on the fact that you can feel an object in a 3 dimensional space beyond which there is not an object that you can feel. You then simply state that this is the "time axis" without providing any evidence or giving any explanation as to how you arrived at your postulate. That is not science.
 
RussDill said:
You assume you are measuring distance. All you've done is compare the end points of the rock and the ruler. It's no different than how we measure time.
Click to expand...
It is very different. I can feel and see both the rock and the ruler independently without the need for a measuring device. I cannot see or feel time. In order to measure time I am compelled to use a measuring device.

We use the notion of "time" because it is useful and not because its independent existence has been verified.
 
Ziggurat said:
You are completely correct in everything you posted here, except for one thing. But that one thing turns out to be the most important one of all.

You assumed that this thread deserves serious responses.
Click to expand...
You ask "Can you explain that without implicitly positing a change of state of something, and consequently time (defined as the dimension of the separation between the different observed states)?".

In order to appreciate my point you need to examine the concept of time from first principles. You have been taught that time is an interval between events. You will I imagine concede that not everything we are taught ends up being factually correct (the earth is flat, the sun orbits the earth etc.). Try to set aside what you have been taught and consider the evidence.

Hold a stone in your hand and then release it so that it drops to the ground. Using your eyes you can observe that the stone has moved from 1 location to another location. What visual observations can you make that anything else has occurred?

You would not have observed with your eyes that time had "flowed" and moreover if you had not been taught the notion of "time" there is no reason why you would assume that time had "flowed" in addition to the events you actually observed.

Events occur and are observed in 3 dimensional space without the need for time to exist.
 
Ziggurat said:
You are completely correct in everything you posted here, except for one thing. But that one thing turns out to be the most important one of all.

You assumed that this thread deserves serious responses.
Click to expand...
I am not sure I follow your point. If everything I say is correct why would my post not deserve serious responses?
 
jonathancollins said:
It is very different. I can feel and see both the rock and the ruler independently without the need for a measuring device. I cannot see or feel time. In order to measure time I am compelled to use a measuring device.

We use the notion of "time" because it is useful and not because its independent existence has been verified.
Click to expand...

I certainly do feel time. In a couple ways.

If I close my eyes and pay attention, I can feel time passing. I will reliably and repeatably tell you when more or less time has passed. I also have a very strong sense of the past being different than the future - the past is fixed and I remember it. The future is more plastic and I do not remember it. I can also do things like feel my pulse - there are distinct "beats," and these can be counted. I experience more time as the number of beats I count increases.

I think you are mistaken in thinking we do not experience time. Now, you may believe that what we experience is an illusion, but the same could be said for everything else we experience, so that's no help.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
This is you repeating philosophical arguments as if they were science, jonathancollins.
For example ignoring the facts that we measure time and know of the existence of things we can neither see or feel.

Sorry, jonathancollins, but An alternative interpretation of the consequences of Special Relativity is not really "The pursuit of truth through observation and reasoning". Scientists pursue "truth" by observing the universe and creating scientific theories to match what they observe.

This web page starts with an error:

There is a demand for "direct evidence" that time exists. All measurements of time are that direct evidence just like all measurements of distances are direct evidence for space.

Quantum particles actually decay without any known external influences, jonathancollins: Particle decay. Spontaneous process does not mean "spontaneous" process!
Click to expand...
My alternative interpretation is clearly not a philosophical argument. It is a modification to a consequence of an existing scientific theory based on all the observations that underpin the theory.

You clearly haven't read my interpretation properly as I clearly acknowledge within it the importance of time to human society and the fact that it is measured.
#

You state "Sorry, jonathancollins, but An alternative interpretation of the consequences of Special Relativity is not really "The pursuit of truth through observation and reasoning". Scientists pursue "truth" by observing the universe and creating scientific theories to match what they observe."

My alternative interpretation is based on the precise observations that have been made so how do you substantiate your statement?

This web page starts with an error:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
"The observation that high speed Muons last longer than Muons at rest could be interpreted in 2 ways:" is wrong. The observation that high speed muons last longer than muons at rest according to an external observer can only be interpreted in one way: That observers measure time dilation.

You state that my interpretation starts with an error which you then categorise as being that time dilation is the only possible interpretation without any substantiation.

You state "There is a demand for 'direct evidence' that time exists.".
#
There is considerable demand for direct evidence that God exists but a demand for evidence is not the same thing as evidence itself.

You state "All measurements of time are that direct evidence just like all measurements of distances are direct evidence for space".

This statement does not make sense.

You state "Quantum particles actually decay without any known external influences".

That is correct in that we do not yet understand the external influences that cause a particle to delay. Thus we can assume either that a particle decays due to an unknown external influence (cause and effect) or that it decays spontaneously without any external factor (no cause and effect). These are my assumptions.

You state "'The observation that high speed Muons last longer than Muons at rest could be interpreted in 2 ways:" is wrong."

But you don't say why it is wrong. This is not a scientific approach.
 
marplots said:
I think you are mistaken in thinking we do not experience time.
Click to expand...
I second that. We experience time, but not as accurately as when use a time measuring device. There is a reason why children say "close your eyes and count to twenty" instead of "close your eyes and wait some time".

ETA: We use our sense of time when we catch a ball. We could not do it without it.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
Of course we perceive time very differently to the other dimensions because our consciousness moves along it, but that doesn't mean it necessarily is very different.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily different, perhaps, but time is indeed different from the spatial dimensions. That difference becomes apparent in the mathematics of relativity, where time shows up in equations such as the Lorentz transformation with sign opposite to the sign of spatial dimensions.

I don't think jonathancollins understands that dimension is a mathematical concept, or that we have thoroughly convincing empirical evidence for a theory of relativity in which time appears as an essential dimension, without which the spatial dimensions would be inadequate to construct an objective (observer-invariant) description of the spacetime phenomena we observe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom