Time is relative too

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by brodix</i>
<br />Time has two directions. The arrow of time for the observer goes from past events to future events. In turn, the arrow of time for these events goes from being in the future to being in the past. To the hands of the clock, it is the face going counterclockwise.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Time is a measure of change. As such, it is always necessarily forward. Your clock example is an example of relative motion, not of time going forward and backward. To the hands of the clock, the face goes counterclockwise *in forward time*. -|Tom|-

Tom,<br />
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Time is a measure of change. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><br />

Exactly! Time is a method for measuring change, not the basis of it.<br />


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As such, it is always necessarily forward. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><br />

The arrow goes from what is first, to what is second. To the observer, past events precede future events, so that arrow goes past to future. On the other hand, these events are first in the future, then in the past, so this arrow goes future to past.<br />


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your clock example is one of relative motion, not of time going forward and backward. To the hands of the clock, the face goes counterclockwise *in forward time*<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><br />

I am not saying time goes backward. I'm saying there is opposing motion being recorded relatively, not absolutely. There are opposing directions of time. The material object that is the clock is traveling into the future. Consider a potential date to be measured by that clock, say June 1st, 2006. Currently it is in the future. In eleven days, it will be in the past.<br />

All motion is relative. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Since this action occurs in a relative frame, rather then an absolute frame, it isn't transcribing another dimension.<br />

Obviously irreversible change does occur, but that is to the information, not the energy of which it consists. Since the amount of energy doesn't change, old information is erased as new is recorded. Time is a function of the information, not the energy.<br />

regards,<br />

brodix

Brodix: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

That's causality.

Brodix: "Time is a function of the information, not the energy."

The way I see it, the information is either matter or energy. Time is a coefficient to describe interactions, keeping in mind that distance is measured in units of time along with the speed of light. Even in the Meta Model, after all, the speed of light is constant in the light carrying medium (taking into account its density).

These are all words, but I like your thought.

Michiel,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> That's causality.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Time, as linear sequencing, is causality. Reality isn't fundamentally linear though.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> The way I see it, the information is either matter or energy. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The difference is conceptual. The point is that rather then being the basis of physical change, time is simply a method of measuring it.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Time is a coefficient to describe interactions, keeping in mind that distance is measured in units of time along with the speed of light. Even in the Meta Model, after all, the speed of light is constant in the light carrying medium (taking into account its density). <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm not arguing methods for measuring time, just making the point that that it what it is, a method of measurement.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> These are all words, but I like your thought. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks. Here's a similar one;

Geometry never incorporated the zero. Geometry starts with the point, which is a virtual one, not an actual zero. Consider that points, lines and planes have a zero dimension. Well, 2x2x0=0. What they really have is a virtual dimension. While a point might not have any dimension, it is still a specific point of reference. A real zero in geometry would be empty space, ie. the potential for any point, not a specific one.

Likewise, three dimensions are a specific coordinate system, not space itself. Any number of coordinate systems can be used to define the same space, so while any particular map of space may be three dimensional, the actual territory of space is infinitely dimensional. This infinite dimensionality of space gives it a fundamental equilibrium, such that however any particular dimension may be distorted, there is an "equal and opposite effect," so that space is ultimately Euclidian.

What this means is that while geometry defines space, it does not create it. It is this assumption that space is simply a function of our measuring it that underlays the concept that it curves and this leads to all sorts of imaginary factors on which current cosmology and physics are based. If space actually expanded, we wouldn't be able to detect it. Like a rubber ruler, it would always be twelve inches long. That other galaxies appear to be moving away from us doesn't mean that space is expanding, only that the distance is increasing as they move away through pre-existing space.

Whether redshift is actually due to recessionary velocity in the first place is open to debate, given this point complicates Inflation Theory, among other issues.

regards,

brodix

Hi Brodix,

Sorry for my emphatic absence. Several (positive) things happened to me lately and none of them have anything to do with Physics, nor science in general.

___

I would like to make this point:

The physical world does not work towards a certain future. It just obeys the laws of physics.
While we humans try to describe physics because we are interested in ... the future.

This is highly philosophical, I know.

Geometry does not define space. We define geometry in an effort to describe the physical world.
And that's a huge difference. Whatever concept we think of, we will never alter physics.

___

Ehhrr, am I still on topic?

___

As for redshift, we'll be talking a lot more about that.

All the best, Michiel.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Michiel</i>
<br />Hi Brodix,

Sorry for my emphatic absence. Several (positive) things happened to me lately and none of them have anything to do with Physics, nor science in general.

___

I would like to make this point:

The physical world does not work towards a certain future. It just obeys the laws of physics.
While we humans try to describe physics because we are interested in ... the future.
This is highly philosophical, I know.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Full agreement here. Because there is no universal point or frame of reference, there is no universal timeline. It is like a loop of rope being braided out of strands pulled from what was already braided. This is because to record new information, you have to destroy old information.



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Geometry does not define space. We define geometry in an effort to describe the physical world.
And that's a huge difference. Whatever concept we think of, we will never alter physics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

My point here is the assumption that space is simply a concept, therefore it is defined by our measurement of it and this measurement is distorted by relative conditions. The accepted fact is that all curvature of space balances out and space is ultimately flat. What I'm arguing is that space is flat to begin with and part of the proof of this is that we can detect the distortions of our ability to measure it, otherwise our ability to sense these distortions would also be affected.
___

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Ehhrr, am I still on topic?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Definitely.

regards,

brodix