Is Time Absolute or Relative: Bob Enyart argues it's absolute...

[One Eyed Jack]

Clocks are just little machines with dials on them. They aren't the physical manifestations of a phenomena called "time", they're just mechanical devices constructed to represent a human idea.

Actually, they're constructed to measure the passage of time. Now if that's the human idea you're talking about, then I guess you're right.

 

[PureX]

Actually, they're constructed to measure the passage of time. Now if that's the human idea you're talking about, then I guess you're right.

Hmmm, and this "passage" would have to be a matter of perspective, wouldn't it? Something would have to be "passing by" something else for there to be "passage". So by definition, then, the passage of time would have to be relative, ie: the movement of something (as it's passing by) relative to something else. We could say that time is just another way of conceptualizing and expressing relativity (the relationships between things). Time is a conceptual measurement of the relationship between space (distance) and motion (speed).

 

[Clete]

I'll let ThePhy handle this one, but...
What's the difference? That’s like making an arbitrary distinction between length and the measurement of length. There is no quantitative difference between the measurement of time and the passage of time..

Of course there is a difference; one is the thing itself the other is the measurement of that thing. In this case time is duration and sequence and the clock produces a set of events in a particular sequence with a standardized duration between them. If something occurs that effects the duration between those events then the measurement will be effected but not the actual amount of time itself that has passed, even for the effected clock.

If the two clocks in Bob's hypothetical had spent their entire existence within a line of sight of one another, say one was perched atop a 1 mile high tower* directly above the other, then each could have observed the other the entire time and while one clock was running slower then the other, neither would have ever left the others present. As Bob put it, they would both have observed the same number of sunrises, sunsets and any other cosmological events you want to include like new moons or shooting stars, comets etc. In fact, if you were to extend the exaggerated nature of Bob's example to the point where the clocks read a full years difference in elapsed time, then one clock would be, according to Einstein, one year younger than the other but the same number of days old, which is, of course, a contradiction and therefore impossible.

Resting in Him,
Clete

* Note also that the top of such a tower itself would be “traveling through time” at a different rate than the base and yet would remain intact in spite of this and so now you would have a single object in two different space-time continuums simultaneously.

 

[fool]

That's because the air is thinner. With EFI, the fuel/air mixture can be adjusted on the fly. I don't think it has anything to do with the general theory of relativity.

Cooking instructions sometimes have alterative cook times or temps for high altitudes as well , for the same reason. I brought it up to illustrate that altitude can effect some things, however, I think Bob used atomic clocks in his scenario in an attempt to remove such variables atomics being regaurded as the most accurate.

But I think you had a point (at least, I think it was you) when you said the clock is just measuring an accumulated difference over a long period of time. Let's say you reset the clocks every day, but jot down the differences so you can add them up. That way, it gets to stay the same day every day, and you've still got your time dilation. Or something like that -- I've had a long night.

Exactly, clocks need not even be used, one could choose a rock from the top of the mountain and it would have the same properties. Also I think there's a misconception that gravity is the culprit here when I think speed was what Einstein was talking about. The top of the mountain is moveing faster than the bottom, just as a child on the edge of a marry-go round travels faster than a child in the center, the child on the edge will accumulate more distance traveled, perhaps miles, but when it stops he's still just a few feet away, always was.

 

[PureX]

Of course there is a difference; one is the thing itself the other is the measurement of that thing. In this case time is duration and sequence and the clock produces a set of events in a particular sequence with a standardized duration between them. If something occurs that effects the duration between those events then the measurement will be effected but not the actual amount of time itself that has passed, even for the effected clock.

If the two clocks in Bob's hypothetical had spent their entire existence within a line of sight of one another, say one was perched atop a 1 mile high tower* directly above the other, then each could have observed the other the entire time and while one clock was running slower then the other, neither would have ever left the others present. As Bob put it, they would both have observed the same number of sunrises, sunsets and any other cosmological events you want to include like new moons or shooting stars, comets etc. In fact, if you were to extend the exaggerated nature of Bob's example to the point where the clocks read a full years difference in elapsed time, then one clock would be, according to Einstein, one year younger than the other but the same number of days old, which is, of course, a contradiction and therefore impossible.

Resting in Him,
Clete

* Note also that the top of such a tower itself would be “traveling through time” at a different rate than the base and yet would remain intact in spite of this and so now you would have a single object in two different space-time continuums simultaneously.

Clete, you're mixing quantum physics with mechanical physics. The actual variations in time, here, are extremely slight, because they are happening on a quantum scale. Blowing them up (through imagination) to the mechanical scale, they become "impossible", but they don't happen at that scale, so imagining them that way is somewhat disengenuous.

We have performed many experiments that have shown us that the conceptual laws that govern physical behavior on a mechanical scale do not hold true for physical behaviors on the quantum scale. Quantum physics is only contradictory when it's being judged by mechanical logic. But that's like judging oranges by the criteria of apples.

 

[fool]

Johnny, then what do we conclude from an antique clock shop with 300 ticking clocks on it's shelves, all keeping slightly different time?

Just curious. -Bob

We conclude that all clocks are not created equal!
( never buy a Rolex from a street vendor in Mexico, their not real! )

 

[Bob Enyart]

Cooking instructions sometimes have alterative cook times...

I think there's a misconception that gravity is the culprit here when I think speed was what Einstein was talking about. The top of the mountain is moveing faster than the bottom...

Oops! Fool, you better stick to cooking instructions .

Oh, and by the way, when you first mentioned that at higher altitudes you had to lean out your carb (oops again), at first I thought you were referring to the news report that there were more than average fat people in Denver per capita .

-Bob

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Cooking instructions sometimes have alterative cook times or temps for high altitudes as well , for the same reason. I brought it up to illustrate that altitude can effect some things, however, I think Bob used atomic clocks in his scenario in an attempt to remove such variables atomics being regaurded as the most accurate.

Exactly, clocks need not even be used, one could choose a rock from the top of the mountain and it would have the same properties. Also I think there's a misconception that gravity is the culprit here when I think speed was what Einstein was talking about. The top of the mountain is moveing faster than the bottom, just as a child on the edge of a marry-go round travels faster than a child in the center, the child on the edge will accumulate more distance traveled, perhaps miles, but when it stops he's still just a few feet away, always was.

Actually, I think they've already accounted for that. And if you'll notice, when things go faster, time slows down -- it doesn't go by faster, which is what happens at very high altitudes. The former is special relativity, while the later is general relativity. They're both in effect, and they tend to cancel each other out to at least some degree (at the speeds and altitudes we're talking about, time speeds up more than it slows down, so you have a net increase in the passage of time).

 

[Clete]

Clete, you're mixing quantum physics with mechanical physics. The actual variations in time, here, are extremely slight, because they are happening on a quantum scale. Blowing them up (through imagination) to the mechanical scale, they become "impossible", but they don't happen at that scale, so imagining them that way is somewhat disengenuous.

We have performed many experiments that have shown us that the conceptual laws that govern physical behavior on a mechanical scale do not hold true for physical behaviors on the quantum scale. Quantum physics is only contradictory when it's being judged by mechanical logic. But that's like judging oranges by the criteria of apples.

I thas nothing to do with "blowing them up to the mechanical scale". It simply is a mental experiment (the sort the Einstien himself employed often) which extend the length of the experiement so that the extremely slight effects of quantum mechanics can be readily seen. It's not as if these effects aren't real, they are real and given enough time the effects would become quite pronouned (see chaos theory if you want proof of that). And so I don't find it disengenuous at all. On the contrary, it is only yet another way of epressing the innately self-contradictory predictions which Einstein's theories produce.

It cannot be denied that Einstein was indeed a very brilliant man with a gift for mathematics and physics and I do not wish to make the point that Einstien was an idiot or even that he was completely wrong. I think it is clear that he was not but what I do believe and what I have repeatedly said in several threads over the last several months is that Einstein's theories do not give us the complete picture; that there is something which he missed. And it is that something which accounts for the wildly contradictory predictions that his theories produce when you take his material to its logical extreme.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Vaquero45]

Oops! Fool, you better stick to cooking instructions .

Oh, and by the way, when you first mentioned that at higher altitudes you had to lean out your carb (oops again), at first I thought you were referring to the news report that there were more than average fat people in Denver per capita .

-Bob

There was a little spike in the average for Denver Saturday, but it went down again.

(I'm working on it!)

Jeff

 

[Adam]

People, this is not hard!

Time is the measurement between two or more events. Those events either caused by physical or non-physical entities. That is absolute.

Our perception of time is what's relative.

truthman

 

[David2]

ditto

 

[JoyfulRook]

I'll let ThePhy handle this one, but...
What's the difference? Thats like making an arbitrary distinction between length and the measurement of length. There is no quantitative difference between the measurement of time and the passage of time..

What you don't understand is that speed affects the way we measure time, not time itself. If the leaves on the trees change colors in July (one way we can tell that is is Autumn) doesn't mean that time has sped up, it means that the we measure time has been skewed. It is the same with clocks.

 

[PureX]

I thas nothing to do with "blowing them up to the mechanical scale". It simply is a mental experiment (the sort the Einstien himself employed often) which extend the length of the experiement so that the extremely slight effects of quantum mechanics can be readily seen. It's not as if these effects aren't real, they are real and given enough time the effects would become quite pronouned (see chaos theory if you want proof of that). And so I don't find it disengenuous at all. On the contrary, it is only yet another way of epressing the innately self-contradictory predictions which Einstein's theories produce.

Yes, but these very slight effects only create such startling results when extrapolated over vast distances and at extremely great speeds. You were trying to make these effects appear illogical by representing them as objects and conditions in a very close, human-scaled environment. Einstein used his imagination to try and understand how such difficult and unfamiliar concepts might actually work. He wasn't fabricating imaginary scenarios with the intent of making them appear irrational or foolish, or to lend support to his biased opinions about relativism.

It cannot be denied that Einstein was indeed a very brilliant man with a gift for mathematics and physics and I do not wish to make the point that Einstien was an idiot or even that he was completely wrong. I think it is clear that he was not but what I do believe and what I have repeatedly said in several threads over the last several months is that Einstein's theories do not give us the complete picture; that there is something which he missed. And it is that something which accounts for the wildly contradictory predictions that his theories produce when you take his material to its logical extreme.

Einstein's ideas represent only the most introductory glimpse into quantum physics and cosmology. Since Einstein's hayday, a lot has happened, and a lot has been learned, and his theories have been altered and amended to accomodate these advances in our understanding. It has become more and more aparent to us that the "rules" that apply to the physical universe at the quantum level are radically different than the rules that apply to the "mechanical" universe that we humans experience with our bodies and minds, directly. And as a result, the logic that we use to negotiate the universe at the mechanical (human) level is not the same logic that works at the quantum level. I agree with you that there are assertions being made by physicists these days that would seem to defy logic. But these assertions are being made about the universe as it's being explored and theorized at a quantum level. And at the quantum level, assertions that do not appear logical to us, do become mathmatically plausable, and can even be reproduced by experimentation. It seems that the deeper we look into the mysteries of material existence, the more bizarre and mysterious it becomes.

 

[PureX]

Time is the measurement between two or more events. Those events either caused by physical or non-physical entities. That is absolute.

What's absolute? The measurement between the events is not absolute (it's relative to the events, and to the increments of measure that we've chosen). The cause of these events being either physical or non-physical is not absolute, it's not even a rational statement. So where's the absolute, here?

 

[fool]

What you don't understand is that speed affects the way we measure time, not time itself. If the leaves on the trees change colors in July (one way we can tell that is is Autumn) doesn't mean that time has sped up, it means that the we measure time has been skewed. It is the same with clocks.

I have no clue what this was supposed to mean, let alone what it has to do with the OP.

 

[Johnny]

Johnny, then what do we conclude from an antique clock shop with 300 ticking clocks on it's shelves, all keeping slightly different time?

Just curious.

That is due to mechanical imperfections, not differences in the measure of time. When you have clocks that measure time with extreme precision that start ticking at different rates, then it is time that has changed, not the measure of time (the mechanism of measurement is still the same and is still just as accurate). It is not just some trick of clocks. You can use any physical process that changes as a function of time for the measure of time. You could use decaying radiomaterial, or the interval it takes a photon to traverse a certain distance. All of these will show the affects of relativity because the passage of time is relative. Remember that each of these will look and feel completely normal to you. Outside observers will disagree.

I should let Johnny go first, but in my mind, the 300 hundred clocks question could be looked at the same way as if you drew two lines X "distance" apart. Then gave three hundred kids slightly different length sticks, and asked each, "how many "lengths" of your stick apart are the two lines? They would all come up with different answers, but we know the real distance between the two lines didn't change 300 times.

Again, mechanical error.

Of course there is a difference; one is the thing itself the other is the measurement of that thing.

Empirically there is no difference. If you measure something as 6 inches (and you've ensured that your ruly is mechanically correct) then we must assume that it is six inches. We can invent all sorts of ideas about what the length really is, but empirically it is six inches and there is no valid reason to say that your inertial frame is the correct one. In other words, if someone else measures it as four inches because of their velocity, then empircally it is four inches for them and six inches for you. Neither of you is more right than the other.

 

[fool]

What's absolute? The measurement between the events is not absolute (it's relative to the events, and to the increments of measure that we've chosen). The cause of these events being either physical or non-physical is not absolute, it's not even a rational statement. So where's the absolute, here?

If you thought that was a waste of electrons you should read Dread's post.

 

[Johnny]

What you don't understand is that speed affects the way we measure time, not time itself.

How do you know? What makes you you think there is a distinction? You're giving an inertial frame a priviledge when you do this (by saying that the leaves actually change on X interval). Why?

 

[Johnny]

Here's a question: How do I find the absolute time between two events?