Yes I agree. It's just a curiosity and I'm just sharing information.
I don't see any evidence of nothing at all.
The Vedas are (much more) full of it too.
Is there Such a Thing as TIme
by givemejustalittlemoretime 53 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Viviane
Viviane Post 1302 - If time is not a function of c, the velocity of light, how do you measure velocity without using time?
c is not the velocity of light.
E = m c^2 implies time, because velocity is the derivative of distance with respect to time.
It doesn't imply time. It utterly requires spacetime.
eah I think time is implied in E=mc^2.
Einstein did a very good job discovering that space=time and gravity=acceleration.
Spacetime. It's simple a ratio of the how much of one property of spacetime is happening. It would be just as valid (and incomplete) to say it implies space.
We feel gravity to the center of the planet because the acceleration in time dimension.
Since you mentioned Einstein, it's described as a curvature of spacetime. Equationally, it's the same as free-fall acceleration in realtion to non-intertional observers. There is no such thing as a "time" dimension. There is spacetime.
It is the body's movement THROUGH time that changes. perhaps you can deal with that model?
Through spacetime.
-
Bart Belteshassur
Viviane - What ever you may believe c is, it is definned by the scientific community as a constant in a vacum on this planet that is equal to 2.998x10^8 metres per second. Seconds are a measurement of time are they not ? Enery is measured in Joules which are again defined as gram metres squared per second squared. Time in seconds appears on both sides of this equation E=mc^2. If you can not accept this fact I suggest you write a new set of laws to explain the basics of physics and chemistry.
-
John_Mann
(There is no such thing as a "time" dimension. There is spacetime.)
There is time dimension as there are wideness and heightness.
3 dimensions of space (x,y,z) and 1 dimension of time (t).
As in any vetorial system if you accelerate in one dimension the others will decrease in module. If you accelerate in one space dimension your time will decrease, if you reach the speed of light in one space dimension your time will stop because the time vector will reach zero.
Acceleration warps the (vector coordinates of) spacetime because that. Acceleration or gravity (same thing).
For a reason (AFAIK it's unknown) the mass have the effect to change the rate of time acceleration, provoking what we perceive as gravity.
-
John_Mann
(c is not the velocity of light.)
Yes it is.
-
Bart Belteshassur
In regard to Kepler post and his very good explaination of time dilation due to velocity variations, whilst I agree that photons experience time as an infite expansion and therefore to them there is no time. However the interesting point is that if a zero value for v/c there is a halt in time, if the escape velocity require to leave a black hole which must be greater than c while give a solution that is an imaginary/complex number, and does this prove the existance of a 5th or/and 6th dimension as it does in maths? Or do we just regard this as a necessary function change?
-
Viviane
What ever you may believe c is, it is definned by the scientific community as a constant in a vacum on this planet that is equal to 2.998x10^8 metres per second. Seconds are a measurement of time are they not ?
No.
If you can not accept this fact I suggest you write a new set of laws to explain the basics of physics and chemistry.
You can suggest it. Cutting and pasting formulas from wikipedia doesn't make time magically separate from space. You may as well just as incorrectly say that space appears on both sides of the equation.
There is time dimension as there are wideness and heightness.
3 dimensions of space (x,y,z) and 1 dimension of time (t).
You are mixing dimension about an object and conflating it with properties of the thing the object is in. It's like saying algae is a property of a fish.
Yes it is.
It is not, nor will it every be. You're only off by one word.
-
kepler
Bart B.,
Regarding the speed of light and excess velocities required to escape from the bounds of a black hole:
Of course, there are still the regions surrounding the black hole where photon velocities are sufficient to fly about in orbits... What do we do with this case? At far approach from the black hole, the photon's velocity is sufficient to be bent below the border where the velocity exceeds c at closest approach... Will it come back out? I doubt it. But energy is conserved somehow, right?
From time to time someone will note that speed of sound and speed of light as physical phenomena have similarities. The equations of fluid mechanics use the speed of sound and the mach number M in a similar way to predict drag and lift, for example. Drag approaches infinity at M=1 and then levels off in the supersonic and hypersonic regimes. Simularly in channel or nozzle flow: two sets of solutions but a singularity around the speed of sound.
And then, as you noted, imaginary numbers have "currency" in other physical phenomena such as electric circuits or sinusoidal motions.
But unlike fluid mechanics, particles in the light medium are transformed in more ways than supersonic objects. And the main hints the outside world has about the internal world of a black hole paint a very strange yet incomplete picture. There is the effect of mass on space and there is angular momentum ( or the effects of spin). Is there evidence of internal magnetic fields? I forget. And then, as Hawkings has pointed out, there are indications of temperature, entropy and means for a black hole to evaporate.... We will both have to read more somewhere else.
On another local controversy: about whether "c" is the speed of light. Perhaps this might help. The physical constant for light speed in a vacuum is nearly 300,000 km/sec. But in media in which it exhibits refractive properties ( bent), the velocity of light is reduced, if I remember correctly, factpred by the cosine of the angle of refraction. Maybe this has something to do with Viviane's argument?
-
Viviane
about whether "c" is the speed of light. Perhaps this might help. The physical constant for light speed in a vacuum is nearly 300,000 km/sec. But in media in which it exhibits refractive properties ( bent), the velocity of light is reduced, if I remember correctly, factpred by the cosine of the angle of refraction. Maybe this has something to do with Viviane's argument?
Nope. The debate isn't about whether c is the speed of light. Of course it is.
But that's not what John Mann said.
-
kepler
Post Script.
I see that I have wandered off topic. But then again, there is an element of the time issue in the above digression.
If you spill a glass of milk or crack an egg, in our view of the direction of time you introduce an irreversible, new level of disorder into the world.
And that, in a way, is how we view the direction of time or time's arrow. As time passes "entropy" increases - with some notable exceptions.
But let us say, as some have, e.g. novelist Phillip Amis, that time's arrow is reversed and everything we see is running backwards: eggs are re-assembling; Humpty-Dumpty thanks to all the king's men and milk is flying back into the bottle. Then murderers are now more like doctors or humanitarians because they are saving lives, etc. In so many ways there are symmetries with time's direction reversed.
It does bring us back to the issue of whether the universe itself experiences time anymore than a river does. Time as part of space-time could be a dimension of that larger medium
And that brings us back to whether we are making choices and altering events - or events such as rocks in the stream are influencing our behavior.
Time looks like it is real in either case since it marks things off. So maybe we have to wonder if our own consciousness is real.
It was the last time I checked.
But then over that interval of time called my life that I have been wrong about a number of things...