Cut it out man, ya'll talking way over my head!

The discussion seems to be revolving around how arbitrary our notion of time is. The units for measuring time are certainly arbitrary, but they can be described in "universal" terms (the length of time it takes event X to occur Y times under Z conditions).

Just because the units used to measure time are arbitrary does not mean that time itself if a human construction. The length of a meter is purely arbitrary, but few would argue that length is a human construction. Or mass. Or angular velocity. Or any other physical measurement. An alien species using different units for time would present no more difficulty in communications that converting feet and meters.

The theory that best predicts large-scale observations is general relativity, and that theory does state that measurements will vary based on the observer's frame of reference (in relation to the item being measured). Two observers, one on the Earth and one on the Moon, could measure the length of time between two light pulses differently. However, the observer on the Earth, armed with his measurement and a precise description of how the Moon-bound observer was moving in relation to his Earth-bound post, could predict the measurement seen on the Moon. Thus, even though no single observation can claim to be the "true" observation, the results of a measurement are still not arbitrary.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

To give a meaningful explanation we need to have fully married quantum physics and general relativity. String theorists are working on this....But in the meantime we cannot fully address the question you raised, what was before the big bang.

There are a couple of ideas floating around though , e.g. one is when 2 branes (those from string theory) hit each other by a cyclic collision , that this may cause then a big bang at some location (and this over and over again some part of these branes) , or the other I think was Briane Greene once showing in the "Elegant Universe" that when you have a "big crunch" the big dimensions (those we see) get smaller and smaller (but of course not infinitely small, remember string theory takes care of infinities) and the small hidden dimensions which string theory postulates then get bigger and bigger creating a new universe in this process (dont ask me what happens with the entropy of the crushed old universe, so that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesnt get violated, I forgot if this was addressed there)

maybe other readers have heard more ideas .......?

So what your saying is, time would stop for the old crushed universe...for a certain period of time, say, seconds for even millenias...but that doesn't make sense if time stops, no time can pass for the crushed..so how would that time be measured given the 2nd law of thermodynamics...?

well, in this model there are not 2 universes , one in where the time stops, the other one where it starts . Rather it is 1 universe where dimensions cyclically shrink and expand , therefore time never stops (the old big dimensions shrink into small dimensions down to Plank scale and then expand again; the hitherto small Palnk scale dimensions expand into big visible and hence livable ones until they start shrinking again, this ad infinitum) and therefore in this model time continues running from eternity to eternity.

Therefore the true basic questions to me is more general and it is the one Leibniz once asked: why is there something rather than nothing?

---

I agree that measuring time is useful and that any measurement unit is abitrary but like someone said that no one would really argue that distance is simply a human construct. Aliens would probably come up with a similar notion as it is quite convenient for ordering events. Any equation is simplified if you can use 2 variables instead of 3 variables as in the example I constructed. Time can be elminated from the equations and still maintain sequential events. It took me all of 10 minutes to remove it from the velocity, force and energy equations and that was my first attempt at it after a challenge. Can length be elinated. I seriously doubt it.

How do you know that time is a real thing instead of simply being a human construct? I still have not see any compelling arguments beyond finger pointing to constants. Although, I'm more willing to accept Solomons Bohr time but I also reconize the problems in that as does Solomon. But I ask again:

How do you know that time is a real thing instead of simply being a human construct?

---

TEAM
LL

To go back to your point. It would be enough information. So, give the speed of 0.1 in your example, the units for example could be 0.1 (v/c). Now you as how far it is to SF, but what you mean is how far does light travel by the time I get to SF by going 0.1 (v/c) and the person you ask says it would take you 5x10^6 lm or "light meters". Voila, you have enough information to figure out how far it is to SF. Since you are moving 10 times slower than light, SF is 5x10^5 meters or about 9.5 miles. Time has been eliminated from the calculations and you can figure out how far it is using different conventions. It's all base on what you were taught.

I'm trying to understand how you eliminated time from your measurements. Even if we define a metric unit of speed, call it the sleestak with symbol §, and a universally meaningful measure of distance (such as a multiple of the Planck distance or the Bohr distance), the only way to relate them is with a measure of time. Speed is a rate and it is only meaningful in measuring the ratio of change in one quantity (distance) with change of another (time). There are certainly rates that don't explicitly involve time, such as the QA rejection rate in a manufacturing process (units rejected per units produced) or the rate of painted stripes on a road (stripes per kilometer of pavement), but speed explicitly relates distance and time.

I know that your example was off the top of your head, but I still don't see how it gets past measuring time. Or am I reading this wrong, and you simply have a preference that time units be derived and c be considered the fundemental unit?

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Velocity would then be a ratio of the distance your object could travel to the distance light could travel given the same time. Instead of a time denomentor, you now have a universal ratio


Since you are moving 10 times slower than light, SF is 5x10^5 meters or about 9.5 miles. Time has been eliminated from the calculations

I agree that measuring time is useful

How do you know that time is a real thing instead of simply being a human construct?

May I be confused?

As far as I "know" everything could be a human construct and so far proofs to be in the course of eh time.

Velocity would then be a ratio of the distance your object could travel to the distance light could travel given the same time. Instead of a time denomentor, you now have a universal ratio


Since you are moving 10 times slower than light, SF is 5x10^5 meters or about 9.5 miles. Time has been eliminated from the calculations

I agree that measuring time is useful

How do you know that time is a real thing instead of simply being a human construct?

May I be confused?

As far as I "know" everything could be a human construct and so far proofs to be in the course of eh time.

Except numbers...i don't think that is a human construct other than the human symbols that represent numbers.

---

Ok, let's do a 10 minute critical analysis of your 10 minute, off the top of your head revolution of the entire field of physics...

To go back to your point. It would be enough information. So, give the speed of 0.1 in your example, the units for example could be 0.1 (v/c).

Ok, v has units of m/s, c has units of m/s. Divide the two, you have no units. Ok, so the units of "velocity" are gone... by definition, it's not a velocity anymore, but we'll go with it.

Now you as how far it is to SF, but what you mean is how far does light travel by the time I get to SF by going 0.1 (v/c) and the person you ask says it would take you 5x10^6 lm or "light meters".

Your "light meter" is nothing more than a renamed meter. The number 5e6 "light meters," was not derived in any fashion, but simply chosen to get you the right answer when multiplied by 0.1. (3e7 m/s)/(3e8 m/s)*(5e6 m) = 5e5 meters. You haven't gotten rid of time in these equations, you never used it.

Time has been eliminated from the calculations and you can figure out how far it is using different conventions. It's all base on what you were taught.

Dimensions are not conventions, they are physical properties of the universe. The only potentially valid point would be if you said everything was a human construct, because one of the fundamental assumptions of science states that there is a physical, rational reality. However, this is a matter of philosophy, and science cannot, and makes no attempt to answer this question.

---

Here's an Installation Guide.
Try the Wiki for other questions.

I'm trying to understand how you eliminated time from your measurements. Even if we define a metric unit of speed, call it the sleestak with symbol §, and a universally meaningful measure of distance (such as a multiple of the Planck distance or the Bohr distance), the only way to relate them is with a measure of time. Speed is a rate and it is only meaningful in measuring the ratio of change in one quantity (distance) with change of another (time). There are certainly rates that don't explicitly involve time, such as the QA rejection rate in a manufacturing process (units rejected per units produced) or the rate of painted stripes on a road (stripes per kilometer of pavement), but speed explicitly relates distance and time.

I know that your example was off the top of your head, but I still don't see how it gets past measuring time. Or am I reading this wrong, and you simply have a preference that time units be derived and c be considered the fundemental unit?

Well, i'm glad that someone realized that a rate does not have to involve time. Thank you. The comparison of this in the new model is that the numerator is the distance traveled the object in question and the denomenator was the distance traveled by light. I chose light because it's a universal constant and would be known to anyone. Just like in velocity there are 2 things that need to be measured. In the traditional and useful velocity, one measures distance traveled and time it took and this give m/s. In the new model as you named it § for Sleestak, one would measure the distance traveled and the distance traveled by light and no stopwatches needed. Simply 2 distances. This would give a NOT UNITLESS value as people might think. It would give meters/meters where the two are measurements of two distinct objects which gives two distinct meters. This is a trap unrealized by most to cancel them out and forget about them. So, i've named one lm for lightmeter and the new unit ratio would be m/lm. lm work because it will always travel at the same rate to itself, thus lm/lm = 1 always. I hope you can see the rate easier this way. Most of the time it's hard to untrain yourself from others and form truly new thoughts.

---

TEAM
LL

[quote]
Dimensions are not conventions, they are physical properties of the universe. The only potentially valid point would be if you said everything was a human construct, because one of the fundamental assumptions of science states that there is a physical, rational reality. However, this is a matter of philosophy, and science cannot, and makes no attempt to answer this question.
[quote]


If you believe this, you should be able to argue it with examples or at least a philosophical approach. I'm still waiting for someone to attempt to convince be besides saying it "IS" and it cannot be argued.

---

TEAM
LL

If you believe this, you should be able to argue it with examples or at least a philosophical approach. I'm still waiting for someone to attempt to convince be besides saying it "IS" and it cannot be argued.

You are the one making the extraordinary claim that you can describe the universe without one of its fundamental dimensions. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Other than poorly supported hand waving arguments, I've seen nothing.

What makes time any different than length? Can you prove to me that length exists?

---

Here's an Installation Guide.
Try the Wiki for other questions.

If you believe this, you should be able to argue it with examples or at least a philosophical approach. I'm still waiting for someone to attempt to convince be besides saying it "IS" and it cannot be argued.

You are the one making the extraordinary claim that you can describe the universe without one of its fundamental dimensions. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Other than poorly supported hand waving arguments, I've seen nothing.

What makes time any different than length? Can you prove to me that length exists?

I say you are wrong.
You say give an example.
I give an example.
You say you're right and I'm wrong.
I say give me an example.
You can't and refuse to give examples.
You say I make extrodinary claims.
I say you make extrodinary claims.
I say you have always been taught what to think but never to think for yourself.

People should always question what they are taught. No advance will come if you don't.

---

TEAM
LL

I say you are wrong.
You say give an example.
I give an example.
You say you're right and I'm wrong.
I say give me an example.
You can't and refuse to give examples.
You say I make extrodinary claims.
I say you make extrodinary claims.
I say you have always been taught what to think but never to think for yourself.

People should always question what they are taught. No advance will come if you don't.

No, I cannot prove to you that time exists, no more than you can prove to me length exists. It's a philosophical question that cannot be addressed scientifically. However, the entirety of physics is based upon the assumption that space and time exist and are measureable quantities... and based upon the sucess of physics, I say it's a pretty good assumption.

I asked you for an example, you gave me one. I showed you why it was wrong. You ignored that and just insisted that I give you an example.

Yes, people should question what they are taught, but to think that you can undermine nearly 400 years of some of the brightest minds' work in 10 minutes is arrogance, plain and simple.

---

Here's an Installation Guide.
Try the Wiki for other questions.

Yes, people should question what they are taught, but to think that you can undermine nearly 400 years of some of the brightest minds' work in 10 minutes is arrogance, plain and simple.

10 minutes of trying is better than a lifetime of never asking the question.

---

TEAM
LL

I know that your example was off the top of your head, but I still don't see how it gets past measuring time. Or am I reading this wrong, and you simply have a preference that time units be derived and c be considered the fundemental unit?

To add to what I said. A fundemental ratio such as m/lm is preceived as unitless to us with our concept of the formulas. But by doing it this way, an alien would have the exact magnitude of relations because it is in a way (but not really) unitless. Whereas if we use m/s, then it depends on how we define meters and how we define seconds. If an alien happens along and measures distance in goolags and uses the "velocity" (§) of goolags/lightgoolags, our ratios are then compatible. This could be done for distance, time, and possibly mass (not immediately obvious to me). The distance ratio is obviously useful but is the time ratio useful if it has been eliminated from the equations as I've shown? Time certainly is not needed to communicate distance or velocity.

---

TEAM
LL

10 minutes of trying is better than a lifetime of never asking the question.

There are two types of people in the world, those who think they are the next Einstein, and those who know they're not (I'm leaving out the "those who actually are" because it's so neglibily small).

People think that because Einstein was a patent clerk when he came up with his theory of relativity that anyone could do it, but those people forget he had (or was getting, I'm not exactly sure) his PhD in mathematics and physics at the time. To date, I can't think of anyone who made a useful contribution to physics in its 400 year history without being an expert in the field. I can, however, think of countless examples of people who think they're going to revolutionize the field with their ill informed theories.

If you want to make a contribution, great, question what you're taught... but first truly understand what you're taught. Get a PhD.

---

Here's an Installation Guide.
Try the Wiki for other questions.

10 minutes of trying is better than a lifetime of never asking the question.

There are two types of people in the world, those who think they are the next Einstein, and those who know they're not (I'm leaving out the "those who actually are" because it's so neglibily small).

I accept your self claimed defeat. I am not you.

What is your problem? Are you against free thought and experimentation? You seem seriously bitter. I'm not you one lacking the ability to argue the claims I make. I'm not going away, so if you don't like what I say, quit reading my posts because that's what I'm doing with you from now on. I'm done with your personal attacks and harassment when I was trying to stimulate discussion.

Join the discussion or at least quit harassing me.

---

TEAM
LL

What is your problem? Are you against free thought and experimentation? You seem seriously bitter. I'm not you one lacking the ability to argue the claims I make. I'm not going away, so if you don't like what I say, quit reading my posts because that's what I'm doing with you from now on. I'm done with your personal attacks and harassment when I was trying to stimulate discussion.

Join the discussion or at least quit harassing me.

My problem is the arrogance with which you cast aside 400 years of work, claiming you know better even though you have obviously had very little training.

I'm done too, I waste too much time here anyway.

---

Here's an Installation Guide.
Try the Wiki for other questions.

I think iti would be a simple matter of conversions, such as a metric to US(?) system.

I also believe that "ET" would probably also devise some system of measurements, including length and time...how else can we express these constructs?

---

To add to what I said. A fundemental ratio such as m/lm is preceived as unitless to us with our concept of the formulas. But by doing it this way, an alien would have the exact magnitude of relations because it is in a way (but not really) unitless. Whereas if we use m/s, then it depends on how we define meters and how we define seconds. If an alien happens along and measures distance in goolags and uses the "velocity" (§) of goolags/lightgoolags, our ratios are then compatible. This could be done for distance, time, and possibly mass (not immediately obvious to me). The distance ratio is obviously useful but is the time ratio useful if it has been eliminated from the equations as I've shown? Time certainly is not needed to communicate distance or velocity.

First, let's be straight on terminology. Speed is a scalar quantity while velocity is a vector quantity. If I drive around a city block at a constant rate of 25 mph, I will have a constant speed but 4 different velocities based on if I am travelling north, east, south or west. The hypothetical metric unit was a scalar unit of speed. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same regardless of the direction in which it is travelling, thus it is considered a constant.
Now onto the meter/meter measurements. The scale that you are proposing gives a ratio between the speed of an object and the ideal speed of light along the same trajectory (that is, if the trajectory were a vacuum). If we arbitrarily decide that 1c describes the same speed as 10^10§ because we have ten fingers, then we have an acceptable way of measuring speeds. However, this does not mean that § is free of a time reference. It is a unit of speed, which is still distance per time.

Think of an example in a completely different context. A manufacturer has several different plants with varying quality records. One of its plants, Alphaville, has a rejection rate of 10 units rejected per 1 million units produced. Another plant in Betaville has a much lower quality process and rejects 100 units per 1 million units produced.

Management wants to measure relative quality, but does not want to have to measure units produced to derive this measurement. It is decided that since the Alphaville plant is consistent (and coincidentally the best), it will be the benchmark. They define 1α as the rejection rate of Alphaville, meaning that Betavill has a rejection rate of 10α.

We've eliminated the tedious need to count units produced, right? Wrong.

We have established a ratio between two rates, each of which canonly be measured by counting units produced. The α measurement might look nice on executive summaries, but it does not alter the underlying reality that QA people in labcoats are checking production counts.

In the same manner, measuring speed as a ratio to the speed of light does not eliminate "time" from the equation. The speed of light is rate of distance per time.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

I think that this thread is a good example of where physics stands today. The professors of the art many times can’t even construct arguments for what they believe and instead sometimes resort to intimidation techniques and flaunting their titles in their own arrogance. Professors should encourage questions and challenges instead of intimidation. A true student of the art of physics will develop theories and test them. In doing so, they will learn the fundamentals far better by constantly disproving their own thoughts than the student that simply learns and accepts what they are taught and moving on. The student developing ideas and theories will maintain interest and continue work and study on their own to become productive and thoughtful scientists. If not sufficiently self assured, the student who is discourage and berated for developing new ideas and thoughts will most likely not be a very inspired scientist. Although the merits of being able to say what others want to hear will get you a better paying job.

In this case, arguments were difficult if not impossible to achieve in order to defend the most basic underlying structure of time, a “fundamental” on which all their work relies on. Does the lack of understanding the most fundamental components underlying and supporting every theory hold any truth to what may be holding physics back? An example: If you go to the physics library, you will see large volumes of the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity. This publication has been around since at least 1984. Research has been going on for much longer than that. With all that work, no one understands gravity. No one can explain proper the anomalous Pioneer accelerations. With corrections and some work, solid predictions are achieved. Are we more secure in our grasp of E&M because of our ability to manipulate it? We have been able to study it in much greater detail than gravity because it’s easier to manipulate. But where is science if those in charge of it don’t even grasp the fundamentals? Within the journal you will find piles of different theories all of which fall short in one way or another but the redeeming quality is the experimental physics that it contains to produce legitimate data for the rest to view.

I want the readers of this thread to know that I do not necessarily believe in replacing time because it is extremely convenient and as long as we understand the concepts of what we are doing and can move forward, that’s all that matters. I still stand by my opinion which I made arguments for that time is a construct of man beyond the units and can be eliminated from the equations to produce the equivalent results by using a constant of light which unlike time would be invariant under quantum mechanics. One has to realize that time began simply by comparing one event to a second event of interest. The easiest example is the event of the location of a clock dial (stick in the ground) in relation to the position of the sun in the sky. It’s purely event based relating events (not time). When the dial is at a certain position, one can predict where the sun will be relative to the earth. Time was created to produce regular events and it does it well but light can do the same thing but also be invariant.

And to Solomon, thanks for being educated in the art and making the points that you believe in. You have changed my opinion before. Octagon, I was hoping for a similar approach you took for religion and it looks like your getting there.  I’ll have to read your post more carefully after work as I wrote this over lunch while the forums were down.

---

TEAM
LL