Does Time = Motion?

[Mikal]

Hi Wick....I noticed in this thread that you said you were collecting perspectives, well I am a perspective collector too so I understand that thirst to understand others are observing things differently...

Time is T=I'm-e or energy..

Being a researcher I have learned throughout my life to use time constructively so also using my energy constructively. If I am not burning up my enegy through physical motion, I am using it up through moving my thoughts and emotions in constant motion.
Time has worked for me because I have not worked against time with my own energy.
Time as a contimuum is all of our human history...I think.
I also see time as constructed chunks of information we live through for example...birth to toddler, toddler to young child, young child to older child, older child to adolescent, adolescent to young adult..to the beginnings of maturing adult which is continuous to old age and eventual death in the phsical sense.
I am so comfortable with time that I do not wear a watch, tryed once but never looked at the thing so put it aside as useless.
I think time began the minute I was born, everything ahead of me would be called the future, but if I stop right now...it is again now...and what is ahead is again the future...everything in my past was me passing through time constructed information chunks through which I slowly became who I am....

Time= T-I'm-e or energy....smiles....


Mikal

[Wick]

Thanks, Mikal,

Good thoughts. I think its important to revalidate the human perception of time passing. Science is based upon observation, and we are the observers. Yet Einstein's relativity demands that we set aside the most common observation of all...the sense of living in the present and of moving from the past into the future.

I think its remarkable that Einstein's theory has had such a deep impact upon the scientifc community in that most of them are convinced based upon the theory of relativity that this particular human observation (time passing) is a kind of human misperception. So in science we have to deliberately disregard some of the metadata that nature feeds us.

I, like you, am not inclined to part with that precious metadata regarding the passing of time based upon relativity alone. I need other reasons. Why? Because if time is determinate and fixed in a block universe, then ideas like freedom and personal responsibility become quaint human notions with no basis in reality. I am not willing to go there based on relativity alone.

Your post, above all others, comes to the heart of why I wanted to find out more about whether Time=motion.

In relativity, time does not equal motion. Einstein's relativity suggests a universe devoid of motion. A frozen block universe which contains all space and all time Such a universe, based upon principles of relativity, does not allow me to make decisions, or to be responsible for my actions. The universe has already written my story. And if I could step outside of space and time, I would be able to view from the outside the whole of my life from beginning to end. I refuse to blindly trust that Einstein got that right.

And like Smolin, I suspect the problem lies with the way science applies the principle of time to its equations.

Thanks, again, for your insightful post!

Wick

[PoPpAScience]

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

THE paper about Special Relativity, by Einstein himself.

http://www.alberteinstein.info/galle..._pp146-200.pdf

THE paper about General Relativity, by Einstein himself.

Don't take my word for it, don't take Daves either, read for yourself and judge.

The confusion about Time, btw, is because Einstein wanted to preserve causality and locality.


The speed of light limit preserves locality.
The rate of time constant being located at zero mass preserves causality.

One of those must be wrong, if both are wrong, we have to throw out a working theory of the Universe. If only one is wrong, we simply have to adjust it to account properly for those effects.

Trying to adjust the speed of light limitation has yet to work in the last 100 years, Smolin is hinting that perhaps the causality limitation is the problem.

I'm saying for certain that it is the problem, and startlingly, that Quantum Mechanics emerges from a Relativistic framework if you correct that causality limitation placed by Einstein.

Thanks Max for those links. It was great to read in Eisteins own words about his use of "Time" in his equations. In his own words:

"If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by ``time.'' We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, ``That train arrives here at 7 o'clock,'' I mean something like this: ``The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.''3"

[Mikal]

Thanks, Mikal,

Good thoughts. I think its important to revalidate the human perception of time passing. Science is based upon observation, and we are the observers. Yet Einstein's relativity demands that we set aside the most common observation of all...the sense of living in the present and of moving from the past into the future.

I think its remarkable that Einstein's theory has had such a deep impact upon the scientifc community in that most of them are convinced based upon the theory of relativity that this particular human observation (time passing) is a kind of human misperception. So in science we have to deliberately disregard some of the metadata that nature feeds us.

I, like you, am not inclined to part with that precious metadata regarding the passing of time based upon relativity alone. I need other reasons. Why? Because if time is determinate and fixed in a block universe, then ideas like freedom and personal responsibility become quaint human notions with no basis in reality. I am not willing to go there based on relativity alone.

Your post, above all others, comes to the heart of why I wanted to find out more about whether Time=motion.

In relativity, time does not equal motion. Einstein's relativity suggests a universe devoid of motion. A frozen block universe which contains all space and all time Such a universe, based upon principles of relativity, does not allow me to make decisions, or to be responsible for my actions. The universe has already written my story. And if I could step outside of space and time, I would be able to view from the outside the whole of my life from beginning to end. I refuse to blindly trust that Einstein got that right.

And like Smolin, I suspect the problem lies with the way science applies the principle of time to its equations.

Thanks, again, for your insightful post!

Wick

Thanks Wick....I think the universe writes possible and probable stories and the decisions we make and the responsibility we bear to the decisions bears us to the probable story we then begin to live through and learn about...

I think Einstein got it all wrong....IMHO...


Mikal

[Wick]

If, for instance, I say, ``That train arrives here at 7 o'clock,'' I mean something like this: ``The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.''3"

Before you get comfortable with the the word simultaneous, consider Einstein's concerns with that word. In Einstein's relativity the word simultaneous looses its meaning. Einstein argued that the word had no real meaning in a universe of relativity.

Wick

[Wick]

Thanks Wick....I think the universe writes possible and probable stories and the decisions we make and the responsibility we bear to the decisions bears us to the probable story we then begin to live through and learn about...

I think Einstein got it all wrong....IMHO...

Mikal

I think we write our own stories. The universe is simply the backdrop against which our actions are carried out. The outcome of our story depends for the most part on how each of us responds to the backdrop/environment against which our story plays out.

I think Einstein got it write in one respect. He described very well how the universe operates for an observer inside a 3-dimensional surface, but not how it actually works.

Regards!

Wick

[Mikal]

Hi Wick...when I think about a particular point in my life, it was as though the sheer intelligence within life presented to me a situation which placed me more or less at a decisional point. At that point I really had to take my possible decision to some forethought...it was much later, standing away from that point where I realized the possible decisions which lay before me, really could have taken me into several different stories which would have then begun to unfold. This is why I stated that I think the universe writes possible and probable stories and the decisions we make cause the dynamics of a particular story to unfold which we then live through....

I don't particularly understand Einstein's papers because he uses too many scientific terms and concepts and I am just learning science now....


Thanks Mikal

[michael turner]

Perhaps. But I would like to keep an open mind. I don't think either you or I know yet what Allen means when he says this. Lets ask questions and find out where our different points of view intersect. I often find that after talking things over and asking questions, I find more in common with the opinions of others than I originally thought.



Please explain how the vehicle of motion operates. I know you talked about this in one of your earlier posts. Could you please express it again in other words?



By start, I assume you mean "Big Bang". What if our current understanding of how the universe began were to change (as it so often has)? Can we assume the Big Bang is truth? Might it not be better to accept it as the best possible model based upon current understanding, but leave the door open for other possibilities as more data comes in?



I don't think entropy need imply an ending. Entropic cooling could continue forever. As long as there is any energy in the universe, we will never reach an absolute zero state in which all things stop. Granted, there will be no observers at that point, so there will no longer be time based on Allen's concepts, but matter and energy will continue to exist in the expanding universe. Let me know if I've missed something here.



Contradicting opinions are always welcome in this thread. I'm looking for everyone's ideas regarding "Does Time=Motion". I only ask that respect be extended to all of the opinions offered. Argument is welcome as long as it comes with respect. Also, I'm not looking to come to conclusion here (as I think the very idea of coming to a conclusion on this issue is remote given our current understanding of the universe). So I would prefer no soapboxing here. I'm deliberately not sharing my ideas on this matter in this forum. I have placed them in the Resting Light Theory thread. I started this thread to better understand everyone else's thoughts on this matter.

Regards!

Wick

Absurd is the wrong word, sorry. Contradictory with My current knowledge and understand is a much better choice of words. I do respect other opinions and this train wreck just points out, from time to time, weakness in the train of thoughts of myself and others.

The vehicle of motion, are you talking about an increasingly accelerating universe? or the nature of the unwinding, decay of the magnetic field? Two completely different explanations
with commonality.

This coooling that you talk about? What is it cooling to, Do you think that the concept of nothing exists? as space? My definition of nothing is non existance, and my definition of existance is something, so if empty space exists, it is not empty, if it exists, it by definition is something, not zero, nothing. This understanding of the concept of Zero, eliminates the concept of forever and the concept of infinate.

Remember in 4th grade math, any real number times nothing = nothing? Where did the real number go?

[michael turner]

What is Time?

Could time be a function of all quanta of matter and energy decay, specifically is time the energy exchange from electromagnetic fields into a monopole field of lowerer energy? Space itself via the gravitational wave. Think about it.

If time and space were wave functions of energy decay into a wave field with a uniform frequency, then time and space would be generated from all matter.

It is a constructive wave interference kickback rate, a zippering, interacting of waves back to their independent sources, that is the gravitational constant and creates gravity.


If anyone cares, This is the answer to lee Smolin's problem with time.
---Quote (Originally by Wick)---
It may be apropos here to insert some comments from Lee Smolin. They come from his book, _The Trouble with Physics_ (2006) pages 256 - 257.

"I believe there is something basic we are all missing, some wrong assumption we are all making. If this is so, then we need to isolate the wrong assumption and replace it with a new idea.

"What could that wrong assumption be? My guess is that it involves two things: the foundations of quantum mechanics and the nature of time.... I strongly suspect that the key is time. More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time...

HELLO!!!! I have been saying this for awhile and I swear I am invisible. Matter and energy generate time and space as a decay process. Gravity is the wave interaction kickback. For every action, there is an equal and oppsite reaction, anybody???
F=M x A anybody??? there is no dark energy, HELLO...

Black holes stabolize a galaxy's time and space as they release their gravitational field, time and space. Everything gets in tune with it, and it is the engine that gives a galaxy its characteristics.


Deaf ears again......tired of trying..

[Wick]

Don't tire of trying Michael. Language is a difficult method of passing information. If we don't respond, it may be that we don't yet understand and therefore don't know what to say.

I think most of us agree with Smolin's assertion, but we have different ways of addressing what is wrong with our perception of time.

Can we agree that time might not be a dimension? Einstein requires a temporal dimension...mostly because Einstein's math is based upon the spatiotemporal relationships established by Descartes and Galileo. It is this conception of the universe that gave rise to 3D + 1D. How do we strip out the 1D of time and still create a working universe?