152 replies to this topic

[StarMountainKid]

StarMountainKid, on 21 June 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

I am wondering why the Present Moment just happens to exist everywhere at the same time.

Sepulchrave said:

It doesn't! The ``present moment'' is entirely a local effect determined by your reference frame. (There is a decent explanation here.)

I understand your point about simultaneity,  but what I'm trying to get at is, even though two observers would not agree when an event happened, their "nows" would always be the same. It seems to me "now" is independent of relative time frames.

Two observers at different distances from a super nova explosion would not agree when that event happened according to their clocks, but they would always agree on when "now" is occurring. This would also be true in time dilation. One observer's clock may be ticking at a different rate relative to another observer's clock, but for both observers,  "now" would always occur at identical moments in their relative time frames, irrespective of what their clocks say, and irrespective of their relatively different rates of elapsing time.

 Now 2.jpg   14.72K   6 downloads

Here I add Disclaimer.

[Mr. Smith]

Horus Christos, on 22 June 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

One problem with the Framling theory is that Black holes also evaporate, due to Hawkin radiation. It takes a great deal of time, but it happens.  Shrinkage will of course happen at a relatively faster rate once there is no more matter around it for the black hole to suck up. Another problem with the Framling theory is that if the universe keeps expanding, there is no guarantee that all black holes would eventually join together.....they'd just keep getting further and further separated and isolated until they gradually dissipated.

As for the HorusChristos theory, well I submit that we are living inside a black hole.  That explains expansion (as we are sucking in matter in from "outside", and our black hole universe will continue to expand until there is no more matter out there, then will start to very slowly contract due to hawking radiation).   My physics isn't good enough to explain this next part, but I think the HorusChristos theory may also goes some way to explaining why time is (or appears) frozen at the event horizon (i.e. the boundary of our black hole universe), at least from our perception from inside the black hole (every point inside it being considered the center).

Oh and I've noticed that Framling and Pbarosso keep forgetting to add the obligatory disclaimer to their theories.  I happy provide one, as I don't really know what I am talking about.

"Disclaimer! I am a totally scientifically-illiterate person who usually completely misinterprets the meaning of quantum mechanics, The Theory of Relativity and all other scientific theories, have no knowledge of the advanced mathematics which properly describe these theories, and am presenting the following poorly conceived personal hypothesis off the top of my head, realizing it is a complete fabrication of my own and bears no resemblance to how the universe in fact actually operates."

Sorry, I forgot most the disclaimer. I also forgot about quazars, neutron stars and probably a few hundred other things.  

Since most galaxies seem somewhat flat and round I wonder what could happen if we "flew" straight up or down (above or below the saucer shaped galaxy) to get to subspace faster. Once in subspace we could in turn use galactic gravity to achieve an enormous speed to pop back into the galaxy almost wherever we wanted.
Still working on the brakes though...

[sepulchrave]

StarMountainKid, on 22 June 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

This would also be true in time dilation.

How could it? We only have simultaneous ``nows'' when we are in the exact same location. If I travel away and then back to you at relativistic speeds, we will have simultaneous ``nows'' at the start and the end of my journey, but in between more time will have elapsed for you then for me.

[StarMountainKid]

Sepulchrave said:

How could it? We only have simultaneous ``nows'' when we are in the exact same location. If I travel away and then back to you at relativistic speeds, we will have simultaneous ``nows'' at the start and the end of my journey, but in between more time will have elapsed for you then for me.

Yes, more time will have elapsed for you than for me. Even though during your journey our clocks are ticking at relatively different rates,  we both have the same experience of "now-ness".  Your "now" would not be in my future, nor my "now" in your past.  The 'duration' of your "now" would be shorter in relation to the 'duration' of my "now", but we would both experience "now" simultaneously.

If, during your journey, your "nows" were different from mine, when your returned, how could our different "nows" correlate?

More time will have elapsed for you than for me, yet both our "now" is the same when you return. I think this indicates that "now" is universal under all conditions, even during time dilation.

In the case of non-simultaneity, even though we observe the same event at different times, our continuous sense of "now" remain the same for both of us.

Edited by StarMountainKid, 23 June 2012 - 04:45 AM.

[sepulchrave]

StarMountainKid, on 23 June 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

More time will have elapsed for you than for me, yet both our "now" is the same when you return. I think this indicates that "now" is universal under all conditions, even during time dilation.

In the case of non-simultaneity, even though we observe the same event at different times, our continuous sense of "now" remain the same for both of us.

I think we are saying the same thing, just interpreting it differently. Reading your words above leads me to conclude that ``now'' is only a local effect. I might assume you have the same sense of ``now-ness'' that I do, but I can only check this when you are right next to me.

To me, ``now'' only makes sense as an origin for space-time coordinates. If you and I meet today, and make plans to have lunch together at Bill's Diner in one week from ``now'', but then I decide to go on a merry 99.99999%-of-light-speed trip to Alpha Centauri tomorrow (and come back the next day), while you stay put on Earth, then ``one week from now'' will be quite different for you and me and we would both end up eating alone.

[chezarelli]

Rlyeh, on 22 June 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

Phenomena is an observable event or occurrence. Perception isn't the same as a reference frame.

i know one is only unique to the person experiencing it that is perception how else can we
even comment or speculate on something we haven't perceive yet

[Rlyeh]

chezarelli, on 23 June 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

i know one is only unique to the person experiencing it that is perception how else can we
even comment or speculate on something we haven't perceive yet

How are you not understanding the meaning of phenomena? Do you understand the concept of verification?
A scientific phenomena can be tested, verified.

[ranrod]

DarkMatterDisturbance, on 19 June 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

I kind of have a problem with this theory. Time only exists because we exist. Doesn't it? I mean, who's telling any kind of time if there's not someone there to count it? What would time be without someone or something to count it? Questions, questions, questions. Maybe the question should be - Does time really exist at all?

Time effects seem real from all the experiments we've conducted.  Many of today's technologies rely on it.  For example, the GPS in your phone and the navigation systems in cars would be off by about a meter a day if the satellites used to calculate GPS coordinates didn't compensate for time dilation.  Those satellites are moving so fast that time runs slower in their frame of reference than on earth (there are no people on those satellites).  The same time dilation can occur due to high gravity rather than speed.  Although for an outside observer time would seem frozen for a large enough mass, within it movement would continue.

[ranrod]

StarMountainKid, on 22 June 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

I understand your point about simultaneity,  but what I'm trying to get at is, even though two observers would not agree when an event happened, their "nows" would always be the same. It seems to me "now" is independent of relative time frames.

Two observers at different distances from a super nova explosion would not agree when that event happened according to their clocks, but they would always agree on when "now" is occurring. This would also be true in time dilation. One observer's clock may be ticking at a different rate relative to another observer's clock, but for both observers,  "now" would always occur at identical moments in their relative time frames, irrespective of what their clocks say, and irrespective of their relatively different rates of elapsing time.

Now 2.jpg

Here I add Disclaimer.

Just to clarify.  One event's occurance in time would be agreed upon by all observers regardless of frame of reference.  If you're going at 99% the speed of light and I'm stationary on earth but we are near each other, we would both see the super nova happen at 3:00pm for instance (both our clocks would say the same exact time).  Simultaneity talks about *separate events* at separate spaces for different observers.  That becomes more tricky when talking about relativistic effects.

[chezarelli]

Rlyeh, on 23 June 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

How are you not understanding the meaning of phenomena? Do you understand the concept of verification?
A scientific phenomena can be tested, verified.

Do you want me to type slower ? my statement was about personal perception awareness understanding feeling
not a scientific fact that can be measured people experience time in different ways. Their is no grand unified theory of
time only symptoms of the reality of it we perceive and measure which lead to aspects of it being verified.Phenomenon
can also be unexplained untested but still occur that the bit your confusing yourself on

[escher7]

I turn 63 this summer. My time is clearly running out.

[Rlyeh]

chezarelli, on 23 June 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

Do you want me to type slower ? my statement was about personal perception awareness understanding feeling
not a scientific fact that can be measured people experience time in different ways. Their is no grand unified theory of
time only symptoms of the reality of it we perceive and measure which lead to aspects of it being verified.Phenomenon
can also be unexplained untested but still occur that the bit your confusing yourself on

I'm not talking about personal perception, if you had put more time in reading than drumming away with misconceptions, you might have understood that.

Do yourself a favor and find out what scientific phenomena is.

Edited by Rlyeh, 23 June 2012 - 01:36 PM.

[chezarelli]

Rlyeh, on 23 June 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

I'm not talking about personal perception, if you had put more time in reading than drumming away with misconceptions, you might have understood that.

Do yourself a favor and find out what scientific phenomena is.

Rlyeh, on 23 June 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

I'm not talking about personal perception, if you had put more time in reading than drumming away with misconceptions, you might have understood that.

Do yourself a favor and find out what scientific phenomena is.

Misconceptions that's not nice  how about  a original thought. Its called theoretical science anyone can do it beware its not a safe as following standard procedure as yourself i have explained the meaning of phenomena scientifically and the one your not sure on unexplained one the principles behind it are understood the other they are not as i have said their is not much more

[Rlyeh]

chezarelli, on 23 June 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

Misconceptions that's not nice  how about  a original thought. Its called theoretical science anyone can do it beware its not a safe as following standard procedure as yourself i have explained the meaning of phenomena scientifically and the one your not sure on unexplained one the principles behind it are understood the other they are not as i have said their is not much more

How about getting your facts straight first?

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Phenomenon

http://dictionary.re...owse/phenomenon

[chezarelli]

Rlyeh, on 23 June 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

How about getting your facts straight first?

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Phenomenon

http://dictionary.re...owse/phenomenon

Ok i give in give me the facts !! i might not respond till tomorrow