Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
behavioralist

Does Twins-paradox Prove "Time-space"?

49 posts in this topic

Is the concept of time, and therefore of time-space, conjectural?

In the twin’s paradox we cause one thing to move so much faster than the other (like some modern satellites) that when their paths again cross the one has aged considerably more than the other, which is faster entropy associated with being more rooted. But entropy is creative; “everything is entropy”. It is the one direction of all things, and velocity causes a deviation in things that are not moving that way by their very nature. It is “arresting” to be unnaturally fast (not that we know the distribution of natural, since the edges of very great cosmic rotations can’t be mapped yet; we are “too fast” to see them).

Considering that the entropy-arresting velocity also deforms an object directionally, isn’t the entropy factor closer to what happens in shrinking (which Michael Crichton has honored with a book involving a shrinking ray and Lilliputian people set in modern times; so not only Eureka and Honey, I… are toying with popularizing it)?

If we shrink a pendulum clock (and its mass) we speed it up and shorten its lifespan. Most complex smaller things have quicker metabolism and commensurably quicker entropy. If a hummingbird didn’t eat nectar it would live longer, but it would also be paralyzed.

The deformation experienced with velocity naturally inhibits activity. There is inertia in the universe that is directional, and slowing it down does not imply that it can be reversed, however amusing I find time-travel stories or long back to the pre-mobile phone era when schizophrenics stood out in a crowd.

This means matter as it now is will not leave the space that supports its distribution, and that space is not anywhere but where this matter now is. And light did not leave a distant star in another space called past space.

Imagine time as an illusion created but putting together millions of clocks each made to to put more hours in the day than the bigger ones. We know which clock we are referring to! This is simply metabolic, and understanding “massless” particles that do or do not gravitate given sufficient provocation can’t really culminate until it is clear that time has never existed; that it is how the conscious explains its absence from the present: “it passes too quickly!”.

In truth it never passes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My head hurts......

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically. everything thing is relative?

Would if entropy happens, but it is nothing like we would expect or perceive. Meaning, entropy will happen and when it does, everything will appear to be linear.

Edited by Mentalcase

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Twin Paradox", one of my favorites...... the reality is that either twin can be the one that is accelerating away from the other, or indeed, they can both be accelerating away from each other by exactly the same amount thereby time passes at an equal rate relative to each twin. Does a moving object truly increase mass, or just kinetic energy thereby does not create any additional mass?

If we say that an object approaching luminal speeds increases its mass, and acquires infinite mass to reach luminal speeds then, by implication, the same object acquires infinite Higgs - Boson particles which is contrary to logic. If we apply Occam´s Razor then the simplest answer is that Mass does not increase with speed, therefore Einsteins assumption falls...IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we say that an object approaching luminal speeds increases its mass, and acquires infinite mass to reach luminal speeds then, by implication, the same object acquires infinite Higgs - Boson particles which is contrary to logic. If we apply Occam´s Razor then the simplest answer is that Mass does not increase with speed, therefore Einsteins assumption falls...IMO

So rather than pointing out that objects cannot go faster than light, you go the other way and contradict experiments which have confirmed relativistic mass increase?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Tests_of_kinematics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe the Twins Paradox is a true paradox, and furthermore I believe that how it is couched is a misinterpretation of Relativity.

Because there is no external (absolute) frame of reference in the scenario, both twins would observe the other moving away at exactly the same velocity. Both would age at exactly the same rate. There is no age paradox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So rather than pointing out that objects cannot go faster than light, you go the other way and contradict experiments which have confirmed relativistic mass increase?

http://math.ucr.edu/...s_of_kinematics

It would appear to be Tom Roberts view that some experiments confirm relativistic Mass increase, whilst many others do not.

Even mathematically the supporting equations for SR are not self consistent, and neither are the Inertial FOR physical properties. For Einstein to be correct you need Rel. Mass Increase AND physical Foreshortening in the direction of the Rel. speeding particle / platform etc.for SR to be consistent. As far as I am aware neither observation has been made.

It is my belief that objects MAY well be accelerated to Superluminal speeds, whether they are detectable with current instrumentation, or will ever be testable is unknown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The obvious thing to try for is the truant FTL particle, since it is only an upgrade for it to pass c. But I want to introduce the simple fact that directionally distorted matter can't behave like directionally balanced matter, and directionality is an applicable K. Things like the way they are moving TOGETHER, just like a jungle likes the way its biodiversity is moving together. Both are evolving, no matter how much decay we can Point the finger at. Decay is good sh_it. Antimatter is mostly gobbled up, for ex; an original nurtient supply like yolk by all acounts I have noticed.

Directionality is chaos to observation, just like biodiversity where we can flanunt how much we have observed but only to deflect how confused we are; chaos except when we have it as unnaturally velocity per mass. But chaos can be approached; models can be compared, and these should reap more understanding of the natural behavior of particles in general, maybe even to their confirmation, since "structure" may be the wrong Word in many cases.

The hardest thing in science is Learning to reason. It is the old joke about the duck being able to Count only Three eggs. Any more and the loss doesn't matter to her. Counting is reason, and ducks do not reason. Not re4asoning is why they have not lost God.. You can't enchant a scientist with a light, but any truly unda,aged Child can't help being enchanted because light is God's love even when man is making it.,

And love (as innocent freedom finds it, not as fear of impecunity, exposure or abandonment colors it) is interactive! Reason can't approach matter as interactive because it is cumulative, not evolved, and so it is Always introducing an obsererver effect.

Edited by behavioralist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well despite my Ph.D. in physics I have no idea what behavioralist's point is. Entropy is a tricky concept to apply to pure kinetic systems, since entropy is inherently connected to the statistics of large numbers. Entropy is clearly connected to the ``arrow of time'' somehow, but the actual definite rigorous connection has proven very elusive.

To the other comments:

The ``twin paradox'' is not a paradox, as Leonardo points out.

I do not think keithsco is correct, and I think the numerous, numerous experiments with particle accelerators provide ample evidence for both time dilation and the increase in relativistic mass. (And of course there are other experiments that prove the same thing.)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well despite my Ph.D. in physics I have no idea what behavioralist's point is. Entropy is a tricky concept to apply to pure kinetic systems, since entropy is inherently connected to the statistics of large numbers. Entropy is clearly connected to the ``arrow of time'' somehow, but the actual definite rigorous connection has proven very elusive.

To the other comments:

The ``twin paradox'' is not a paradox, as Leonardo points out.

I do not think keithsco is correct, and I think the numerous, numerous experiments with particle accelerators provide ample evidence for both time dilation and the increase in relativistic mass. (And of course there are other experiments that prove the same thing.)

Why is a change in the rate of growth or decay a change in time?

Let's say we freeze something to the Point where it does not grow or decay at all. Then we have isolated the factor time. Does it exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is a change in the rate of growth or decay a change in time?

Let's say we freeze something to the Point where it does not grow or decay at all. Then we have isolated the factor time. Does it exist?

How are you aware the frozen something does not change?

That would be via the passage of time.

Time is not a property of an object within the universe, it is a property of the universe itself. You cannot "isolate time" while being part of the universe.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are you aware the frozen something does not change?

That would be via the passage of time.

Time is not a property of an object within the universe, it is a property of the universe itself. You cannot "isolate time" while being part of the universe.

I think I understand what Behahavioralist is saying (correct me if I am wrong please):

"A closed system at Absolute Zero, within an Open Universe, will for all intents and purposes not be affected by the Arrow Of Time, and therefore time is not a property in the Closed System?" In this posit then time is not however isolated it is removed from that part of the Universe. Interestingly, if the Rubicon of 0Kelvin is crossed in the negative direction (e.g. -1Kelvin) will the Arrow of Time reverse as a result of S<0 and so the closed system start moving backwards in Time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I understand what Behahavioralist is saying (correct me if I am wrong please):

"A closed system at Absolute Zero, within an Open Universe, will for all intents and purposes not be affected by the Arrow Of Time, and therefore time is not a property in the Closed System?" In this posit then time is not however isolated it is removed from that part of the Universe. Interestingly, if the Rubicon of 0Kelvin is crossed in the negative direction (e.g. -1Kelvin) will the Arrow of Time reverse as a result of S<0 and so the closed system start moving backwards in Time?

I understand what behaviouralist is saying, but the flaw in the thought experiment is how do you measure the object is not affected by the 'arrow of time'?

The only way to do that is an observer measuring for change in the object. Thus time still exists, it is not "isolated" as a property of the object frozen and no conclusion regarding the nature of time is possible except it is independent of any object within the universe.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what behaviouralist is saying, but the flaw in the thought experiment is how do you measure the object is not affected by the 'arrow of time'?

The only way to do that is an observer measuring for change in the object. Thus time still exists, it is not "isolated" as a property of the object frozen and no conclusion regarding the nature of time is possible except it is independent of any object within the universe.

I am not saying that "time" is isolated, what I am saying is that "time" is no longer a component within the closed system. "Time" still exists within the Open System. IF time no longer exists in this example, then do you truly have a 3 Dimensional system?,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not saying that "time" is isolated, what I am saying is that "time" is no longer a component within the closed system. "Time" still exists within the Open System. IF time no longer exists in this example, then do you truly have a 3 Dimensional system?,

And I am saying that, as long as there is an observer - and there has to be - there is no closed system.

And regardless that the object does not change, time is still relevant to the system - as the scale against which the lack of change is measured.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I understand what Behahavioralist is saying (correct me if I am wrong please):

"A closed system at Absolute Zero, within an Open Universe, will for all intents and purposes not be affected by the Arrow Of Time, and therefore time is not a property in the Closed System?" In this posit then time is not however isolated it is removed from that part of the Universe. Interestingly, if the Rubicon of 0Kelvin is crossed in the negative direction (e.g. -1Kelvin) will the Arrow of Time reverse as a result of S<0 and so the closed system start moving backwards in Time?

Wouldn't isotopes still continue to decay even in absolute zero temperatures? Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I am saying that, as long as there is an observer - and there has to be - there is no closed system.

And regardless that the object does not change, time is still relevant to the system - as the scale against which the lack of change is measured.

I think that scalar properties do not exist within a 3 dimensional closed system. Scalar properties needs- must exist in a minimum of 4 dimensions as time and distance are inexorably entangled.

No observer is necessary for a closed system to exist, and in fact, an observer cannot exist because it would violate said closed system, because observation requires the time component...but again this is just IMO.

Edited by keithisco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't isotopes still continue to decay even in absolute zero temperatures?

Theoretically yes, you are correct. Another objection to this posit would be that it violated the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which implies motion must be greater than the minima of its potential well (quantum groundstate) otherwise you would be able to predict the precise location of all particles.

So, in the example that I use the terms would have to be changed to assert that no motion exists - even zero point vibrational energy. In this case, is the closed system existing outside of time?

EDIT: I would never win a Spelling Bee contest!

Edited by keithisco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that scalar properties do not exist within a 3 dimensional closed system. Scalar properties needs- must exist in a minimum of 4 dimensions as time and distance are inexorably entangled.

No observer is necessary for a closed system to exist, and in fact, an observer cannot exist because it would violate said closed system, because observation requires the time component...but again this is just IMO.

If there is no observation of said object/system, how is it possible to make the determination it does not change? And what can this lack of change be measured against/compared with?

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theoretically yes, you are correct. Another objection to this posit would be that it violated the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which implies motion must be greater than the minima of its potential well (quantum groundstate) otherwise you would be able to predict the precise location of all particles.

So, in the example that I use the terms would have to be changed to assert that no motion exists - even zero point vibrational energy. In this case, is the closed system existing outside of time?

I'm not sure how being unable to accurately predict the location of particles means no motion exists, if you somehow could set up a detector without affecting this system you should still detect the emitting of particles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we introduce some sort of quantification of time here, aside from that people experience it as twenty-four hours per day? Say, fractal time. What is the thing that has the most miraculous form of longevity? If a hummingbird could live a million years, for example, this would be miraculous (except that it would de depriving the Earth of his organic tax-payments). What about smaller things? What's the signature of a long-lasting or very transient particle? Are there smooth and alternatively erractic breeds of particle? Can one induce a smooth particle to be erractic and shorten its span?

In fractal speculation we have at the one extreme something that exists for an eterniiy in an instant. Is there any other factor of time other than comparison of time per time? Such as eternity per instant. Take away all matter and erergy, and are you left with space-time?

Edited by behavioralist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how being unable to accurately predict the location of particles means no motion exists, if you somehow could set up a detector without affecting this system you should still detect the emitting of particles.

because the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states (forgive the paraphrasing ) we cannot measure the position (x) and the momentum (p) of a particle with absolute precision. The more accurately we know one of these values, the less accurately we know the other. So, if we can accurately predict the position with absolute precision then that particle cannot have a velocity.

This is the point behind my stating , as a test parameter, that all motion is absent and to theorise that perhaps the parameter "Time" is also absent as a consequence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states (forgive the paraphrasing ) we cannot measure the position (x) and the momentum (p) of a particle with absolute precision. The more accurately we know one of these values, the less accurately we know the other. So, if we can accurately predict the position with absolute precision then that particle cannot have a velocity.

This is the point behind my stating , as a test parameter, that all motion is absent and to theorise that perhaps the parameter "Time" is also absent as a consequence...

If there is a limit to velocity, what is the limit to the two opposites, collision-velocity and separation-velocity, which would intuit as being two things moving in opposite directions so that relatively, how the one is perceived from the other, it is a simple matter of adding them the way the traffic cops do; sixty plus ninety equals one-fifty?

If a galaxy is showing as a line, then on one end the stars and the emission of light are moving at a fair clip away from us and at the other end toward us. But the light from one side of the line is not coming to us ahead of the other. That's the Foundation of the question.

Or as I read that Einstein put it: If I move the mirror away from me at the speed of light...

When do two opposite velocities not add up? When are they not relative? Is there a cut-off Point, or is it subject to a spectrum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states (forgive the paraphrasing ) we cannot measure the position (x) and the momentum (p) of a particle with absolute precision. The more accurately we know one of these values, the less accurately we know the other. So, if we can accurately predict the position with absolute precision then that particle cannot have a velocity.

This is the point behind my stating , as a test parameter, that all motion is absent and to theorise that perhaps the parameter "Time" is also absent as a consequence...

Keywords here being measure and accurately. Your conclusion implies velocity ceases to exist rather than being unknown or approximation.

How do you measure every particle without the particle hitting the detector? (If the particle hits the detector, it must be moving).

On the other hand if we only measure the path of the particles, does "Time" magically reappear?

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were rooted to the present in every sense, would you experience time or just a diversity of rates of change and behavior?

A conditioned aversion to the present, conditioned because adults regard the privacy of how they perceive each other, the lowly roles they covertly assign to each other and deflect with histrionic devices, sacred. We are born regarding the present as where we live, and we are conditioned to be averse to contradicting the histrionic deflections; which is to anything in the present except the rewards we obtain for sustaining that aversion.

Time seems real trapped in memory, but socially memory is a not even redundant. Life and form are perpetually social, each creature divulging itself utterly and perpetually. Matter and energy are about the absolute efficacy of utter transparancy in Concert with utter vulnerability. That's the subconscious.

A conscious construct has to want time to be part of it, since there is so Little to remember in an instant, even if it's "the Money instant", like when the nipple shows (pause it right there; nudity also being an invention or contrivance, but who can shake it off?

If a rock flies from here to there, is the Place where it was here old space?

If we want to add dimensions to space instead of to relative behavior we might begin with the mystery of "nothing". Is nothing how too many dimensions appear to novice evolution?

Is the universe a gravid pocket of simplicity where a multideminsional World is awaiting its development?

Edited by behavioralist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.