Does the sun's gravitational field distort time?

[Arzen]

If the gravity of a black hole would appear to slow down time for someone near it who's farther away, would the gravity of our sun appear to slow down time for someone who's in deep space and far away from any stars?

Obviously the gravity of a black hole is far stronger then the gravity of our sun, but comperably speaking, even if it's enough that it can barely be measured, is it possible?


EDIT: Oh, apparently scientists have discovered a new form of matter as well. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4462209.stm

[zethon]

If the gravity of a black hole would appear to slow down time for someone near it who's farther away, would the gravity of our sun appear to slow down time for someone who's in deep space and far away from any stars?

Obviously the gravity of a black hole is far stronger then the gravity of our sun, but comperably speaking, even if it's enough that it can barely be measured, is it possible?


EDIT: Oh, apparently scientists have discovered a new form of matter as well. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4462209.stm

The gravitational pull of the sun is so weak compared to that of a blackhole, that I would guess any distortion would be so minute we wouldn't notice.

[Starscream606]

ya but what if the sun was moving really FAST

[Welshy]

Or we were moving really SLOW

[attackrat]

It only works if you're a bunch of over-the-hill actors flying around in a stolen Klingon warship.

[Frito]

The gravity of the earth distorts time. The gravity of ANYthing distorts time. Right now, time is passing faster (slower? I can't remember which way gravity affects the perception of time) for me because I'm at 5280 ft. and you're at sea-level.

[Starscream606]

The gravity of the earth distorts time. The gravity of ANYthing distorts time. Right now, time is passing slower for me because I'm at 5280 ft. and you're at sea-level.
i'll kill you for that. no one does that to Chris! :shakefist

[Welshy]

Current mood: Hoppin' mad!

Those jerks keep telling me I have slow time or something. Einstein is laughing at me from the grave! But i'll show him, i've trained a team of weevils to go and eat his burial clothes. No one laughs at Chris! :shakefist

[bad1]

If the gravity of a black hole would appear to slow down time for someone near it who's farther away, would the gravity of our sun appear to slow down time for someone who's in deep space and far away from any stars?

Obviously the gravity of a black hole is far stronger then the gravity of our sun, but comperably speaking, even if it's enough that it can barely be measured, is it possible?


EDIT: Oh, apparently scientists have discovered a new form of matter as well. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4462209.stm


pfft.. what do you know about the sun...i've seen your picture...pasty boy.. you should be inquiring as to the effect of living in a basement on sexual development.

[Pearl Campbell]

The gravity of the earth distorts time. The gravity of ANYthing distorts time. Right now, time is passing faster (slower? I can't remember which way gravity affects the perception of time) for me because I'm at 5280 ft. and you're at sea-level.But then again, what do you know about that? You only have high school physics.

[D8alus]

In order for gravity to affect time, time would have to be PHYSICAL. Time is not physical, therefore gravity does not affect it.

Time is not ANYTHING. Time is an idea that we arbitrarily assign to the passing of moments.

[Pearl Campbell]

In order for gravity to affect time, time would have to be PHYSICAL. Time is not physical, therefore gravity does not affect it.

Time is not ANYTHING. Time is an idea that we arbitrarily assign to the passing of moments.Shut up and stop being agreeable.

EDIT: I retract the above statement and replace it with "D8, you are retarded."

[Starscream606]

In order for gravity to affect time, time would have to be PHYSICAL. Time is not physical, therefore gravity does not affect it.

Time is not ANYTHING. Time is an idea that we arbitrarily assign to the passing of moments.
you learned that in the physics class you skipped?

[Pearl Campbell]

you learned that in the physics class you skipped?He was much too busy pretending he was Sam Fischer.

[Blackferne]

In order for gravity to affect time, time would have to be PHYSICAL. Time is not physical, therefore gravity does not affect it.

Time is not ANYTHING. Time is an idea that we arbitrarily assign to the passing of moments.


Time is a measurement like distance. The same way that distance, weight and everything else gets distorted in high gravity areas, so does time. Sync up two digital watches send one into space for a few years (less gravity) re synch at sea level and the one up in space will be ahead of teh one at sea level.

[Starscream606]

Time is a measurement like distance. The same way that distance, weight and everything else gets distorted in high gravity areas, so does time. Sync up two digital watches send one into space for a few years (less gravity) re synch at sea level and the one up in space will be ahead of teh one at sea level.
NO TIME CANT CHANGE BECAUSE ITS MAKEBELIEVE MAN MADE

[D8alus]

Time is a measurement like distance. The same way that distance, weight and everything else gets distorted in high gravity areas, so does time. Sync up two digital watches send one into space for a few years (less gravity) re synch at sea level and the one up in space will be ahead of teh one at sea level.

Yeah, but is it time itself that has changed or just the device that is used to measure time?

Astronauts and ground control don't have different time scales. They both are seeing the astronauts gone for the same time...

God this is so hard to talk about an abstract without naming it.

[Pearl Campbell]

Measurements of time (as with measurements of everything) are manmade. The property itself isn't.

[Starscream606]

Astronauts and ground control don't have different time scales. They both are seeing the astronauts gone for the same time...


no they don't.

[D8alus]

no they don't.

...

Yes they do. It's impossible not to.

[Starscream606]

...

Yes they do. It's impossible not to.

i thought it was impossible that a college educated man had never heard of relativity but i keep forgetting that the white trash army guys squander their education oportunities.

[D8alus]

i thought it was impossible that a college educated man had never heard of relativity but i keep forgetting that the white trash army guys squander their education oportunities.

The time MEASUREMENT maybe different, but the ACTUAL time elapsed is the same.

Relativity doesn't even come into play, seeing as how it deals with motion and not time.

[jaymay15]

...

Yes they do. It's impossible not to.
If twins have on a stop watch, and one of them flies around the world, while the other one stays put, the one that flew around the world will have a stop watch on that is roughly 2 seconds behind that of his twin brother that stayed put (once he returns). If the twins had been born a second apart, the youngest twin therefore would have become the oldest twin.

Its all in Einsteins research of continuums and time travel. Feel free to look it up BEFORE you make something up claiming Im wrong about what I read/studied in COLLEGE PHYSICS.

[Pearl Campbell]

The time MEASUREMENT maybe different, but the ACTUAL time elapsed is the same.

Relativity doesn't even come into play, seeing as how it deals with motion and not time.You originally said time is manmade. Stop changing your argument.

[Frito]

The time MEASUREMENT maybe different, but the ACTUAL time elapsed is the same.

Relativity doesn't even come into play, seeing as how it deals with motion and not time.

D8, I like you. You're cool. Quit while you're ahead. Please.

[D8alus]

If twins have on a stop watch, and one of them flies around the world, while the other one stays put, the one that flew around the world will have a stop watch on that is roughly 2 seconds behind that of his twin brother that stayed put (once he returns). If the twins had been born a second apart, the youngest twin therefore would have become the oldest twin.

Its all in Einsteins research of continuums and time travel. Feel free to look it up BEFORE you make something up claiming Im wrong about what I read/studied in COLLEGE PHYSICS.
Stop arguing about stopwatches and LISTEN to what I'm saying.

The measurement of the time may change, but the ACTUAL time elapsed would not. Those two twins could be in CONSTANT conversation without missing a beat. (provided they had the proper technology)

[D8alus]

You originally said time is manmade. Stop changing your argument.

I'm NOT changing my argument.

I just don't have but one word for time.

Find me another and I'll gladly use it.

[Starscream606]

i feel cheated that i had to pay for the waste that is d8alus's college.

[D8alus]

i feel cheated that i had to pay for the waste that is d8alus's college.

You haven't proven me wrong yet.

[Pearl Campbell]

I'm NOT changing my argument.

I just don't have but one word for time. Find me another and I'll gladly use it.

Your original post:


Time is not ANYTHING. Time is an idea that we arbitrarily assign to the passing of moments.

[D8alus]

Your original post:

Ok...and?

I'm not going to continuously type out "passing of moments" if that's what you're implying.

[jaymay15]

You originally said time is manmade. Stop changing your argument.
:qfe:

Stop arguing about stopwatches and LISTEN to what I'm saying.

The measurement of the time may change, but the ACTUAL time elapsed would not. Those two twins could be in CONSTANT conversation without missing a beat. (provided they had the proper technology)
Wrong again, college dropout. The man traveling around the world does not see a spike in time anywhere, nor does the man staying in one spot. The fractions of those 2 seconds spread out so thin, it is nearly not possible to record. Not to mention if they were both 'in contact' with each other, would they realize the time differential.

Its all there to be read. How about you go read it, and stop making things up that make sense to you. Notice you are spouting things off about things you dont know to try to sound right, and others are giving you facts that people such as Einstein and other top notch scientists have PROVED.

[Frito]

Have I gone mad? Is this a Gaia reproduction?

[jaymay15]

Ok...and?

I'm not going to continuously type out "passing of moments" if that's what you're implying.
Of course not, because we didnt give you another word for it.

[D8alus]

:qfe:


Wrong again, college dropout. The man traveling around the world does not see a spike in time anywhere, nor does the man staying in one spot. The fractions of those 2 seconds spread out so thin, it is nearly not possible to record. Not to mention if they were both 'in contact' with each other, would they realize the time differential.

Its all there to be read. How about you go read it, and stop making things up that make sense to you. Notice you are spouting things off about things you dont know to try to sound right, and others are giving you facts that people such as Einstein and other top notch scientists and history PROVED.

No, becaust they've THEORIZED about it!

A theory is NOT yet proven.

What you're talking about is time travel. Time travel is not possible because time is neither physical nor dynamic (in the sense that time will always pass by the same increment).

[Agent of the System]

i feel cheated that i had to pay for the waste that is d8alus's college.

yay!

[jaymay15]

No, becaust they've THEORIZED about it!

A theory is NOT yet proven.

What you're talking about is time travel. Time travel is not possible because time is neither physical nor dynamic (in the sense that time will always pass by the same increment).
You are doing it again.

You do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

[Pearl Campbell]

Ok...and?

I'm not going to continuously type out "passing of moments" if that's what you're implying.That's what time is and you said time is simply an idea made by man.

[D8alus]

You are doing it again.

You do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

Yes, I DO know what I'm talking about..I just don't know how to make YOU understand it.

[D8alus]

That's what time is and you said time is simply an idea made by man.

You know damn well what I meant, stop arguing semantics.

[Starscream606]

You haven't proven me wrong yet.
you're so completely wrong and its obvious to everyone here except you that i don't think its worth my time. you've already shown your ignorance on the definitions of basic physics theories. i don't even know where to start. its like dellis going on and on about being a juggalo and them him calling me out to prove why dried faygo on his socks is disgusting.

[jaymay15]

Tell me this, if time is made my man, why cant it be slowed down? Time is a measurement of moments. Time is as made up as volume or area or density.

[Pearl Campbell]

No, becaust they've THEORIZED about it!

A theory is NOT yet proven.

What you're talking about is time travel. Time travel is not possible because time is neither physical nor dynamic (in the sense that time will always pass by the same increment).I wish I had never read this post. Then I may have saved a few brain cells. You do not understand time travel. Please shut the fuck up.

[jaymay15]

I wish I had never read this post. Then I may have saved a few brain cells. You do not understand time travel. Please shut the fuck up.
He is only trying to say 'Back to the Future' can never happen!!

:eek:

[Blackferne]

How the velocity plays into (or why D8 is wrong)

e=mc^2 which basically if you do the math out will show as you approach the speed of light you get more mass. If you ever got to the speed of light you'd have infinite mass. One of the odd things about that is that if you have infinite mass for your perspective (or frame of reference time stands still) to an outside observer watching you and your infinite ass fly by, you'd be a mere blip in time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation)

So time is part of the fabric of space and more massive object warp time more and more. One of the things they have documented is that time changes as you travel faster/are around denser objects.

[Agent of the System]

Maybe D8alus only learned Newtonian physics, and not Relativity.

[Agent of the System]

e=mc^2 which basically if you do the math out will show as you approach the speed of light you get more mass.

What does energy = mass x the speed of light ^ 2 have anything to do with the fact that as you approach the speed of light your mass increases? Due to the relation between mass and energy?

[jaymay15]

Also, the stop watch study doesnt involved time travel, although it was included on Einsteins time travel.

Twin B is neither going into the past or into the future. He is not becoming younger than himself. That is where relativity plays in. None of this has been about time travel, so d8 saying 'time travel is impossible' really doesnt fucking matter. Thats him pretending he is arguing something else.

[Blackferne]

Maybe D8alus only learned Newtonian physics, and not Relativity.

Yeah you don't need relativity to lob an artllery shell, however newtonian physics come in handy.

Conclusion: D8 learned relativity is the work of communism.

[Agent of the System]

Here's a fun example of Relativity! If a man is on a train, and he shines a light on a mirror on the ceiling, to him, it looks like the light is merely going at a 90 degree angle up, and then directly back down! But to an observer not on the train, the light will be moving in a zig-zag pattern! OMG

[Starscream606]

Yeah you don't need relativity to lob an artllery shell, however newtonian physics come in handy.

Conclusion: D8 learned relativity is the work of communism.
good thing its all computerized or he'd never make it with his lack of trig

[Pearl Campbell]

Yeah you don't need relativity to lob an artllery shell, however newtonian physics come in handy.

Conclusion: D8 learned relativity is the work of communism.D8 learning relativity did not cause World War II.

[jaymay15]

Here's a fun example of Relativity! If a man is on a train, and he shines a light on a mirror on the ceiling, to him, it looks like the light is merely going at a 90 degree angle up, and then directly back down! But to an observer not on the train, the light will be moving in a zig-zag pattern! OMG
:eek:

OMG OMG OMGOMG

[jaymay15]

good thing its all computerized or he'd never make it with his lack of trig
Yeah, with his luck, hed fire the artillery shell, and it would kill george washington. :eek:

[Pearl Campbell]

Countdown to when D8 says he was trolling the entire time:

[D8alus]

I give up...I know what I'm saying and what I'm saying isn't what you're arguing against but I don't know how to make you understand what I'm saying

[jaymay15]

Countdown to when D8 says he was trolling the entire time:
:lol: :lol:

[Blackferne]

Yeah, with his luck, hed fire the artillery shell, and it would kill george washington. :eek:

TIME TRAVEL CAN'T HAPPEN!!!!


PARADOX!!!!

[jaymay15]

I give up...I know what I'm saying and what I'm saying isn't what you're arguing against but I don't know how to make you understand what I'm saying
Put a loaded gun in your mouth, and broadcast it on the web, then pull the trigger. We will understand you then.

[Blackferne]

I give up...I know what I'm saying and what I'm saying isn't what you're arguing against but I don't know how to make you understand what I'm saying


WE WIN AGAIN, FANS!!!!

[jaymay15]

TIME TRAVEL CAN'T HAPPEN!!!!


PARADOX!!!!
:eek:

OMG GW IS SAFE ANOTHER DAY!

[Agent of the System]

TIME PARADOX!

FISSION MAILED!

[Frito]

What does energy = mass x the speed of light ^ 2 have anything to do with the fact that as you approach the speed of light your mass increases? Due to the relation between mass and energy?

An object's kinetic energy increases as its velocity increases. So, as an object speeds up, it has more energy. An object that has more energy is more massive.

[jaymay15]

Robert Zemeckis just called, and thanks to D8, he has decided to destroy all the Back to the Futures and redo them to better fit D8's explanation of time travel.

:emo:

[Agent of the System]

Robert Zemeckis just called, and thanks to D8, he has decided to destroy all the Back to the Futures and redo them to better fit D8's explanation of time travel.

:emo:

noooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Starscream606]

fuck, the time paradox turned all the light coming from the monitor into blood. thats not right? :wth:

[Pearl Campbell]

Time travelling backwards is possible and ONLY possible if you're Michael J Fox.

[jaymay15]

Time travelling backwards is possible and ONLY possible if you're Michael J Fox.
Question is, could he shake a chocolate milk as well as he can now if he were to travel back in time?

[John Titor]

Time travelling backwards is possible and ONLY possible if you're Michael J Fox.
:shifty:

[Starscream606]

:shifty:
:eek:

[Pearl Campbell]

:eek::O_o:

[jaymay15]

John Titor had sex with his mom, and she gave birth to him!

OMG MIND BLOWING!

[Agent of the System]

John Titor had sex with his mom, and she gave birth to him!

OMG MIND BLOWING!

I thought I read that someone investigated Titor and found out he was some dude that went to jail around the time Titor stopped posting.

[jaymay15]

I thought I read that someone investigated Titor and found out he was some dude that went to jail around the time Titor stopped posting.
Thats what he would have you think!

[KidShazaam]

I'm sorry D8, but time dilation has been proven, and fits exactly with Einstein's special relativity.

[jaymay15]

I'm sorry D8, but time dilation has been proven, and fits exactly with Einstein's special relativity.
:melvin:

[RhettSarlin]

An object's kinetic energy increases as its velocity increases. So, as an object speeds up, it has more energy. An object that has more energy is more massive.
QFE

[$1.25]

guys i think d8alus would know more about this subject than scientists, i mean, come on.

[KidShazaam]

guys i think d8alus would know more about this subject than scientists, i mean, come on.

I think he's arguing something else and can't express it.

D8, you can't travel through time backwards...at least at our current level of understanding special relativity won't allow it. You can't travel forward in time in your own frame of reference, but you CAN travel forward in time of someone ELSE'S frame of reference.

[Frito]

I'm working on him now.

I think his problems stem from conflicting definitions of time and the human perception of time.

EDIT: No, that's not it.

[jaymay15]

I'm working on him now.

I think his problems stem from conflicting definitions of time and the human perception of time.
I think it stems from that he hates being dumb.

[$1.25]

I think it stems from that he hates being dumb.

time travel isnt realistic!

[D8alus]

I think he's arguing something else and can't express it.

D8, you can't travel through time backwards...at least at our current level of understanding special relativity won't allow it. You can't travel forward in time in your own frame of reference, but you CAN travel forward in time of someone ELSE'S frame of reference.

That's sorta it...I'll try to get frito to understand what I'm saying and then he can explain it. :P

[jaymay15]

time travel isnt realistic!
Yes it is, Im traveling with time right now, as time goes by for a second, I go with it. Time is my concorde, and we travel like the wind!

[$1.25]

wrong again jay, i time traveled in the army, and i know thats not what times like in the real world.

[jaymay15]

wrong again jay, i time traveled in the army, and i know thats not what times like in the real world.
:eek:

My horse is....dead?

[KidShazaam]

:eek:

My horse is....dead?

Linguo IS dead!

[jaymay15]

Linguo IS dead!
Laugh it up, modelboy.

[KidShazaam]

Laugh it up, modelboy.
http://www.fanpot.demon.co.uk/kkid/zabka_s.jpg


:(

*edit* I should actually make that my av.

[jaymay15]

http://www.fanpot.demon.co.uk/kkid/zabka_s.jpg


:(

*edit* I should actually make that my av.
KEEEEYYYY AYEEE!!

[mulbikenew!]

Or we were moving really SLOW
*Is reminded of Family Guy episode where Mag has a crush on Adam West*

[KidShazaam]

http://www.fanpot.demon.co.uk/kkid/zabka_s.jpg


:(

*edit* I should actually make that my av.

Done! :lol:

[D8alus]

[12:32] lundy712: d8
[12:33] lundy712: you said you weren't going to argue
[12:33] The Real D8alus: Yeah, but I lied
[12:33] lundy712: not to mention you're irrefutably wrong on this one
[12:33] The Real D8alus: No, I'm not
[12:33] lundy712: yes d8
[12:33] The Real D8alus: no
[12:34] The Real D8alus: I don't know how to say it in a way that you can understand it, but I'm not wrong
[12:34] lundy712: i'm praying that wikipedia has a good article on this
[12:34] The Real D8alus: time is not relative
[12:34] lundy712: so i don't have to explain it
[12:34] lundy712: yes
[12:34] lundy712: yes it is
[12:35] The Real D8alus: Dude, I know what you're saying, but on a fundamental level, it is NOT relative
[12:35] The Real D8alus: if it was, we could travel through it
[12:35] lundy712: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity
[12:35] lundy712: that's not too long
[12:35] lundy712: how so?
[12:35] The Real D8alus: everything that everyone has brought up so far is talking about chemical and/or physical changes that are used to measure time
[12:35] The Real D8alus: changes that can be altered by outside influence
[12:36] The Real D8alus: but the TIME itself is not actually altered
[12:36] The Real D8alus: I know all about relativity
[12:36] The Real D8alus: relativity deals with speed and motion, NOT with time itself
[12:37] The Real D8alus: do you understand what I'm saying?
[12:37] The Real D8alus: time itself is immutable, the way we measure and percieve it is not
[12:37] lundy712: i think we're suffering from a conflict of definitions
[12:37] The Real D8alus: we are, because I don't know what to say other than "time"
[12:38] The Real D8alus: but time is an arbitrary value
[12:38] The Real D8alus: arbitrary in that way back when, humans put a value to it
[12:38] lundy712: The unit of time is the duration of exactly 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom at a temperature of 0 K (13th CGPM (1967-1968) Resolution 1, CR 103).
[12:38] lundy712: from wikipedia
[12:38] The Real D8alus: yeah, that's a measurement
[12:39] The Real D8alus: but
[12:39] The Real D8alus: what I'm talking about is not the measure ment
[12:39] The Real D8alus: er measurement
[12:39] The Real D8alus: but what else would you say to refer to it?
[12:39] lundy712: d8, i don't know what you're talking about
[12:40] The Real D8alus: and that's the problem
[12:40] The Real D8alus: I don't know how to explain it to you
[12:40] lundy712: one second is 9 billion periods of a cesium atom o 0K
[12:40] lundy712: *at 0 K
[12:40] lundy712: roughly
[12:40] lundy712: that's what time is
[12:40] The Real D8alus: ok...try to consider this, it may help.
[12:41] The Real D8alus: consider that somewhere, there's an absolute constant on time that doesn't involve an amount
[12:41] The Real D8alus: hypothetically
[12:41] lundy712: what do you mean?
[12:41] lundy712: "absolute constant on time"
[12:41] lundy712: ?
[12:42] The Real D8alus: fuck it, I give up...I know what I'm saying and what I'm saying isn't what you're arguing against but I don't know how to make you understand what I'm saying
[12:43] lundy712: that sounds frustrating
[12:43] The Real D8alus: very much so
[12:43] lundy712: i want to understand though
[12:43] The Real D8alus: ok
[12:45] The Real D8alus: ok, try this...somewhere, outside of the universe where things like gravity and magnetism don't apply...there's a guy with a stopwatch...his stopwatch is perfect....by THAT scale, the passage of time is not relative. someone in orbit and someone at the equator is still on the same time, even though their measurements say different.
[12:45] The Real D8alus: now..obviously, this guy doesn't exist...but the abstrract is there
[12:46] The Real D8alus: the past is the past and is ALWAYS the past, the present is the present and is constantly BECOMING the past. And the present becomes the past at the same rate for all of us.
[12:46] The Real D8alus: and no one can reach the future at a faster rate than anyone else...
[12:47] lundy712: The Real D8alus: and no one can reach the future at a faster rate than anyone else...
[12:47] lundy712: yes!
[12:47] lundy712: finally
[12:47] lundy712: we agree on something
[12:47] The Real D8alus: I'm a little rusty
[12:47] lundy712: wiat
[12:47] lundy712: no we don't
[12:47] lundy712: what's "the future"?
[12:47] lundy712: define it
[12:47] The Real D8alus: haha..umm...the step ahead of the present.
[12:48] The Real D8alus: it's an abstract and I suck at defining abstracts...in case you haven't noticed
[12:48] lundy712: so, let's say there are two observers in the forest
[12:48] lundy712: they are both observing a tree
[12:49] lundy712: one observer is twice as far away from the tree as the other
[12:49] lundy712: ok?
[12:49] The Real D8alus: ok
[12:49] lundy712: the tree falls
[12:50] lundy712: now, the light from the falling tree reaches the closer observer first, right?
[12:50] The Real D8alus: right
[12:50] lundy712: is he "in the future"?
[12:50] The Real D8alus: but in actuality, the tree fell at the same "Time" for both observers
[12:50] The Real D8alus: no
[12:50] lundy712: ok
[12:51] lundy712: no imagine that one of the observers is moving away from the tree at half the speed of light
[12:51] lundy712: *now
[12:52] lundy712: he would measure a *different* amount of time for the event to occur
[12:52] The Real D8alus: yes, that's relativity, but again, the moment the tree falls isn't different, only the moment that the observer becomes aware of it.
[12:53] lundy712: ok
[12:53] lundy712: the tree only fell once
[12:54] The Real D8alus: yeah
[12:54] lundy712: so we seem to agree
[12:54] The Real D8alus: ok, in Jay's example, for instance...two twins on an airplane
[12:54] lundy712: at least with my example
[12:54] The Real D8alus: both twins existed the entire time
[12:54] The Real D8alus: one twin didn't skip points of existance
[12:55] The Real D8alus: that would be against the law of conservation of mass/energy, yes?
[12:55] lundy712: hold on
[12:55] lundy712: back up
[12:55] The Real D8alus: sorry, one twin on the ground, one flying around the world
[12:55] lundy712: this is one clock on the ground, while another travels at high speed around the world?
[12:56] The Real D8alus: yeah
[12:56] lundy712: ok
[12:56] lundy712: the traveling clock will be behind
[12:56] The Real D8alus: yeah, less gravity or somesuch..I'm a tad sketchy on that, but it's irrelevant
[12:56] lundy712: no
[12:57] The Real D8alus: in either case, both twins existed for the entire flight
[12:57] lundy712: how do you mean?
[12:57] The Real D8alus: one clock is ahead of the other
[12:57] lundy712: right
[12:57] The Real D8alus: to one person, less time seemed to have passed
[12:58] lundy712: not seemed
[12:58] lundy712: less time passed for the traveler
[12:58] The Real D8alus: in reality, the same....period has passed for both of them...neither one ceased to exist for intervals in order for them both to arive at the same point again at different "times"
[12:59] lundy712: no
[12:59] The Real D8alus: ok, wait...
[12:59] lundy712: aboard the airplane, the cesium atoms completed fewer periods than the stationary clock
[12:59] The Real D8alus: right
[13:00] The Real D8alus: but I'm not talking about measured "time"...it's more of that past, present, future stuff
[13:00] lundy712: well not hold on
[13:00] lundy712: i'm think we're getting somewhere
[13:00] lundy712: suppose one clock goes around the world, while another stays put
[13:00] The Real D8alus: even with the periods of atoms, that's a measurement...measurements of time ARE relative
[13:01] lundy712: hold on
[13:01] lundy712: please
[13:01] The Real D8alus: ack, ok
[13:01] lundy712: so, two clocks
[13:01] lundy712: one traveling around
[13:01] lundy712: then, they come back together in the forest, the same distance from the tree
[13:02] lundy712: Clock A, having traveled around the world is 1 second behind the stationary clock
[13:02] lundy712: clock B
[13:02] lundy712: ok?
[13:02] The Real D8alus: ok
[13:03] lundy712: then you put them next to eachother and they observe a falling tree
[13:03] lundy712: they both would agree on the instant that the tree falls
[13:03] The Real D8alus: yes
[13:03] lundy712: ok
[13:03] lundy712: so now i don't understand where you're going wrong
[13:04] The Real D8alus: I'm not..I'm just having trouble explaining it
[13:04] The Real D8alus: ok
[13:04] The Real D8alus: can we agree that "time" and the "rate of existance" are different?
[13:04] The Real D8alus: i.e. time would be the values on the clocks
[13:04] The Real D8alus: rate of existance would be the moment the tree fell
[13:05] lundy712: i'm with you on time
[13:05] lundy712: not on "rate of existence"
[13:05] The Real D8alus: ok...
[13:05] lundy712: i've never heard of that term
[13:05] The Real D8alus: I just coined it
[13:06] lundy712: ok, explain it
[13:06] The Real D8alus: let's call it the rate that the present becomes the past..it's an abstract
[13:06] The Real D8alus: i.e. the tree fell at a specific moment in existance
[13:06] The Real D8alus: that moment is the same, no matter how fast you're moving or how far from the tree you are
[13:07] The Real D8alus: with me so far?
[13:07] lundy712: mmm
[13:07] The Real D8alus: keep in mind, I'm not talking about a clock value
[13:08] lundy712: what do you mean when you say that the "moment is the same"
[13:08] The Real D8alus: and I'm not talking about how long it takes to be aware of the tree falling
[13:08] The Real D8alus: [12:52] lundy712: he would measure a *different* amount of time for the event to occur
[12:52] The Real D8alus: yes, that's relativity, but again, the moment the tree falls isn't different, only the moment that the observer becomes aware of it.
[12:53] lundy712: ok
[12:53] lundy712: the tree only fell once
[13:08] The Real D8alus: that help?
[13:09] lundy712: ok, go on
[13:10] The Real D8alus: ok, then the length of "moments" from the tree falling to ANY observer in any place would always be the same
[13:10] The Real D8alus: they might not yet know that the tree fell
[13:10] The Real D8alus: but the tree has already fallen
[13:10] lundy712: The Real D8alus: ok, then the length of "moments" from the tree falling to ANY observer in any place would always be the same
[13:10] The Real D8alus: that's what I'm describing as the "rate of existance"
[13:11] lundy712: not exactly
[13:11] The Real D8alus: yes it would..maybe not the same length of seconds
[13:11] lundy712: then what?
[13:11] The Real D8alus: but it's already been said that the tree can't fall more than once
[13:11] The Real D8alus: so the tree fell at a specific "moment"
[13:11] The Real D8alus: and each "moment" after that is the same for anyone anywhere
[13:12] lundy712: right, but observers can disagree on the amount of time it took
[13:12] The Real D8alus: right
[13:12] The Real D8alus: the difference between time and what I'm calling rate of existance
[13:12] The Real D8alus: the time will be relative depending on the observer
[13:12] The Real D8alus: but the rate of existance will not
[13:13] lundy712: so, they disagree on time, but they agree on the "rate of existance?"
[13:13] The Real D8alus: yes
[13:13] The Real D8alus: because the tree only fell once and it had to have fallen at a specific time.
[13:13] The Real D8alus: or..moment
[13:13] lundy712: measured by what though?
[13:14] lundy712: observers in a universe where time is relative
[13:14] The Real D8alus: it's an abstract...consider rate of existance outside of time..or maybe seperate from it
[13:15] lundy712: i'm afraid we're back to the definition of "rate of existance"
[13:15] The Real D8alus: it doesn't really need a measurement
[13:15] The Real D8alus: ok
[13:15] The Real D8alus: from the time the tree started falling till the time it finished
[13:15] The Real D8alus: it only hit each step fo the fall once, yes?
[13:15] The Real D8alus: because it only fell once
[13:15] lundy712: "each step"?
[13:16] The Real D8alus: the fluidity of the fall...each position it passed through on the way down
[13:16] lundy712: you mean the positions in space between upright and fallen?
[13:16] The Real D8alus: yes
[13:16] lundy712: there are an infinite of those
[13:16] The Real D8alus: yes
[13:16] The Real D8alus: but it only passed each one once
[13:16] The Real D8alus: assuming it didn't crack and bounce
[13:16] The Real D8alus: in which case it still only passed each one once in the same moment
[13:17] The Real D8alus: with me so far?
[13:17] lundy712: The Real D8alus: in which case it still only passed each one once in the same moment
[13:17] lundy712: that threw me off
[13:17] The Real D8alus: ok
[13:18] The Real D8alus: let's work from the "time" of the tree
[13:18] The Real D8alus: each nanosecond at the tree, the tree was at a particular position
[13:18] The Real D8alus: not for the entire nanosecond, obviously
[13:18] The Real D8alus: but for the sake of argument, let's not get caught up on details
[13:19] The Real D8alus: the tree was never in two positions at the same nanosecond
[13:19] lundy712: at t = 1s, the tree was a position x
[13:19] The Real D8alus: yes
[13:20] The Real D8alus: now, the time it took from upright to fallen, at the tree will be the same everywhere...measuring FROM the time at the base of the tree
[13:20] lundy712: at t = 1.00000000000001s, the tree was at postion x + something
[13:20] The Real D8alus: the time in other places would be different, but the time AT the tree would be the same everywhere
[13:21] lundy712: ok
[13:22] The Real D8alus: ok, now take the actual time measurement out of the equation
[13:22] The Real D8alus: the passing of moments from the tree upright to fallen is the same everywhere...where moments is an abstract value...say...the time AT the event, maybe
[13:23] The Real D8alus: the rate of existance is the passing of moments EVERYWHERE and it is the same rate for everyone even though the passage of seconds may be different
[13:24] The Real D8alus: i.e. 10 seconds at the tree is 10 seconds at the tree no matter where you are, even if it's only been 2 seconds for you
[13:24] The Real D8alus: does that make sense? I know the value of seconds could cloud the issue, but I don't know what else to say
[13:25] The Real D8alus: the value of "moments" isn't important...what IS important is that a "moment" is the same "moment" no matter where you are.
[13:26] lundy712: a moment is a position in space?
[13:28] The Real D8alus: a moment is a position in existance that is both concurrent with time and outside of time...umm...existance being the sum of the past and present
[13:29] The Real D8alus: I hate it when my vocabulary fails me...
[13:29] The Real D8alus: I don't know how to put what I'm thinking into words :-P
[13:31] lundy712: i think you're describing a moment as absolute time
[13:31] lundy712: which doesn't exist
[13:31] The Real D8alus: but it does
[13:31] The Real D8alus: because if it didn't, how do you explain the tree only falling once?
[13:33] lundy712: hmm?
[13:33] The Real D8alus: we're arguing in circles here, you know
[13:34] lundy712: i think we've come to the point where you think there's some absolute measure of time
[13:34] The Real D8alus: you agree that the tree falls only once, you agree that the tree falls at a specific instant, you agree that this specific instant is the same instant for everyone, then you tell me that the instant isn't absolute
[13:35] The Real D8alus: of "time", maybe not, but of existing, yes. As we've said, no one gets from the present to the future any faster than anyone else.
[13:36] lundy712: but the "future" is just events that haven't happened yet
[13:37] lundy712: and you can't observe the event before it happens
[13:37] The Real D8alus: right
[13:37] The Real D8alus: it's an abstract
[13:37] The Real D8alus: ok
[13:37] The Real D8alus: try this then
[13:37] The Real D8alus: no one's past is further away from the present than anyone elses
[13:38] The Real D8alus: the present becomes the past at the same rate for everyone
[13:38] lundy712: no
[13:38] The Real D8alus: and everyone's present is the same instant
[13:38] The Real D8alus: no?
[13:39] lundy712: no
[13:40] lundy712: because their clocks would disagree
[13:40] The Real D8alus: irrelevant
[13:40] The Real D8alus: we're back to the tree falling
[13:41] The Real D8alus: regardless of the time on the clock, the tree fell at the same instant
[13:41] lundy712: lunch
[13:41] lundy712: hunger wins
[13:41] The Real D8alus: haha
[13:41] lundy712: sorry i can't understand
[13:41] lundy712: bye

Enjoy!

[Frito]

D8 thinks that time is absolute.

That's pretty much the only concrete statement that could come out of our hour long conversation.

[jaymay15]

It doesn really matter what words d8 coins, what he says, none of that, nor does it matter that he thinks I am personally attacking him in this post, what matters is that he is not educated enough to have his word mean anything in the shadow of Einstein's studies.

Am I making MYSELF clear? You can logically prove to yourself whatever it is that you are trying to prove, and if it gives you peace, thats fine. But take that peace and shut up. Because you are still refusing to go learn about what Einstein said, and his work can be found on the internet.

[D8alus]

It doesn really matter what words d8 coins, what he says, none of that, nor does it matter that he thinks I am personally attacking him in this post, what matters is that he is not educated enough to have his word mean anything in the shadow of Einstein's studies.

Am I making MYSELF clear? You can logically prove to yourself whatever it is that you are trying to prove, and if it gives you peace, thats fine. But take that peace and shut up. Because you are still refusing to go learn about what Einstein said, and his work can be found on the internet.
Einstein was NOT talking about what I'm talking about, Jay!

[Agent of the System]

[13:34] The Real D8alus: you agree that the tree falls only once, you agree that the tree falls at a specific instant, you agree that this specific instant is the same instant for everyone, then you tell me that the instant isn't absolute

That's wrong. If a star supernovas, and there are two adjacent stars, one thirty light years away, and another fifty light years away, the supernova will happen at different times for those two stars.

[jaymay15]

Einstein was NOT talking about what I'm talking about, Jay!
You used his study in your rant, and you know nothing of his study.

You fail. F-

[jaymay15]

Einstein was NOT talking about what I'm talking about, Jay!
Wait, he wasnt? How do you know? YOU HAVENT READ HIS STUDIES!

[D8alus]

That's wrong. If a star supernovas, and there are two adjacent stars, one thirty light years away, and another fifty light years away, the supernova will happen at different times for those two stars.

No, you will SEE it at different times. It still happened at the same time if they both went nova at the same time.

[RhettSarlin]

d8lus, i am pretty sure i see what you're saying with all that. the thing is that the person travelling close to the speed of light/being affected by gravity/whatever is actually experiencing fewer time parts per part that the people who stayed behind are. a person who would go off travelling into space for 50 earth years and came back would not be 50 years older, less time would have transpired for them on their journey. it gets kinda screwy that way.

[D8alus]

Wait, he wasnt? How do you know? YOU HAVENT READ HIS STUDIES!

God dammit, get over yourself and listen to what I'm saying.


If you ask a scientist how old he is, he won't respond with "That depends on what part of the universe you're in or how fast you're going."

He'll tell you his age in earth years and he will be THAT many earth years old no matter WHERE he or you are.

[Agent of the System]

No, you will SEE it at different times. It still happened at the same time if they both went nova at the same time.

There's no way to know there was a supernova until you see it. So it doesn't matter.

[D8alus]

d8lus, i am pretty sure i see what you're saying with all that. the thing is that the person travelling close to the speed of light/being affected by gravity/whatever is actually experiencing fewer time parts per part that the people who stayed behind are. a person who would go off travelling into space for 50 earth years and came back would not be 50 years older, less time would have transpired for them on their journey. it gets kinda screwy that way.

1) That's theory.

2) They never ceased to EXIST for that entire time and then popped back into existance. So there IS something outside of time that IS an absolute on the passage of existance.

[D8alus]

There's no way to know there was a supernova until you see it. So it doesn't matter.

It does matter.

There's no way to know someone died until they call you, that doesn't change the time of death.

[Agent of the System]

It does matter.

There's no way to know someone died until they call you, that doesn't change the time of death.

"Time of death" is a manmade invention entirely unrelated to physics.. That analogy is not apt. We're discussing astronomically, an event can happen at different times depending upon distance since there's no method of "instantaneous communication" on such a large scale.

[jaymay15]

God dammit, get over yourself and listen to what I'm saying.


If you ask a scientist how old he is, he won't respond with "That depends on what part of the universe you're in or how fast you're going."

He'll tell you his age in earth years and he will be THAT many earth years old no matter WHERE he or you are.
Im not having this argument over and over.

Get over YOURSELF, and go read Einstein. Why the fuck you refuse to yet still argue about this is pointless.

Nobody is arguing that from thirty years from now, you or I wont be 30 years older. That has nothing to do with anything. Thats like saying bananas will be yellow in thirty years. It doesnt MATTER. Thats using time as a measurement. Not as a variant.

Go read it, and you know what? You might learn something. It might put everything you are thinking into perspective. Hell, you might even be right, and then you will be able to explain yourself. Until then, you are just some guy on the internet that doesnt matter because your opinion is backed up by nothing.

[D8alus]

"Time of death" is a manmade invention entirely unrelated to physics.. That analogy is not apt. We're discussing astronomically, an event can happen at different times depending upon distance since there's no method of "instantaneous communication" on such a large scale.

Notification of an event does NOT determine the moment it happened. :|

[D8alus]

Im not having this argument over and over.

Get over YOURSELF, and go read Einstein. Why the fuck you refuse to yet still argue about this is pointless.

Nobody is arguing that from thirty years from now, you or I wont be 30 years older. That has nothing to do with anything. Thats like saying bananas will be yellow in thirty years. It doesnt MATTER. Thats using time as a measurement. Not as a variant.

Go read it, and you know what? You might learn something. It might put everything you are thinking into perspective. Hell, you might even be right, and then you will be able to explain yourself. Until then, you are just some guy on the internet that doesnt matter because your opinion is backed up by nothing.

You know what, you're not even listening to what I'm trying to say are you?

[jaymay15]

You know what, you're not even listening to what I'm trying to say are you?
Nope, because you are making stuff up that makes sense to you.

[Agent of the System]

Notification of an event does NOT determine the moment it happened. :|

It determines when it happened relative to distant objects. Learn to fucking understand relativity. To the distant object, the star did not supernova UNTIL the light from that supernova reached it.

[jaymay15]

It determines when it happened relative to distant objects. Learn to fucking understand relativity. To the distant object, the star did not supernova UNTIL the light from that supernova reached it.
And really, D8, if you can grasp what that means, you will better understand the argument that was originally made.

[D8alus]

It determines when it happened relative to distant objects. Learn to fucking understand relativity. To the distant object, the star did not supernova UNTIL the light from that supernova reached it.
This is NOT about relativity!

Fuck it, you guys go on being know-it-alls.

I refuse to even attempt to continue this discussion since you refuse to attempt to understand what I'm saying.

[Jeebs]

This thread rocks; 5 stars.

[RhettSarlin]

1) That's theory.

2) They never ceased to EXIST for that entire time and then popped back into existance. So there IS something outside of time that IS an absolute on the passage of existance.
yes, it's theory. but its daggum pretty well worked-out theory.

and yes, you are correct, they never disappeared from existance during that time. for that to happen time would have to not be infinitely divisible, there'd have to be some point at which you can have no smaller unit of time....i agree that there's an absolute on the passage of existance, but the thing is whether or not it's possible to slow down the effect of that passage of existance upon the individual.

[jaymay15]

This is NOT about relativity!

Fuck it, you guys go on being know-it-alls.

I refuse to even attempt to continue this discussion since you refuse to attempt to understand what I'm saying.
You promise?

Im not being a know it all. Im telling you to study what you are preaching.

Here is a quote from Einstein, which partly backs up what some of the others were saying.


The relativistic analogy can be carried to its logical end. Since time begins to slow down with higher speeds,it can be shown that at the speed of light it stops totally and beyond that begins to run backwards! Similarly, matter having contracted more and more, ultimately vanishes. But Beyond the speed of light it is difficult to imagine negative matter with infinite mass.

[Agent of the System]

This is NOT about relativity!

Fuck it, you guys go on being know-it-alls.

I refuse to even attempt to continue this discussion since you refuse to attempt to understand what I'm saying.

There's no such thing as a "universal timeline" because there's no such thing as "instantaneous communication". Each location has its own seperate timeline in which events happen relative to its location.

[D8alus]

There's no such thing as a "universal timeline" because there's no such thing as "instantaneous communication". Each location has its own seperate timeline in which events happen relative to its location.

If I punch you in the face in Nashivlle at 2 pm, that doesn't mean that I punch you in the face again, two hours later in San Fransico.

I punched you in the face ONCE. The time on the clocks was just different.

But the punch occured at one INSTANT in time.

THAT is NOT relative.

[Agent of the System]

If I punch you in the face in Nashivlle at 2 pm, that doesn't mean that I punch you in the face again, two hours later in San Fransico.

I punched you in the face ONCE. The time on the clocks was just different.

But the punch occured at one INSTANT in time.

THAT is NOT relative.

You're using shitty analogies of events on Earth to explain physics on a vast universal scale, and that's why you're wrong. To someone on Alpha Centauri, you wouldn't have punched me in the face until four years later. They would have no way of knowing that you did until the light from Earth reached it, and they could observe the event.

[jaymay15]

another thing worth reading:

http://erntheburn.tripod.com/timetravel/timetravel.htm

[D8alus]

You're using shitty analogies of events on Earth to explain physics on a vast universal scale, and that's why you're wrong.

And you think that time is determined by when you see it happen.

That's why YOU'RE wrong.

[jaymay15]

D8 has become notorious for lying and breaking promises. Not very scientific of you.

[RhettSarlin]

If I punch you in the face in Nashivlle at 2 pm, that doesn't mean that I punch you in the face again, two hours later in San Fransico.

I punched you in the face ONCE. The time on the clocks was just different.

But the punch occured at one INSTANT in time.

THAT is NOT relative.
yes, now you are definitely beginning to make sense :D. ok, yes it happened at the same instant in time. the thing is that if time is moving at a different speed in a different place, then to observers there it would appear that your punch took LONGER or SHORTER to finish, because they are moving at a higher/lower rate through time. same as to you, they'd be going at fast/slow speed.

[Agent of the System]

And you think that time is determined by when you see it happen.

That's why YOU'RE wrong.

Events are relative to when you see them occur. To "see" something, light has to hit it and then reflect back to your eyes. That doesn't occur instanteously so you don't "see" a car drive by at the EXACT instant that it does so. There's no such thing as absolute time.

[jaymay15]

We now begin the countdown until D8 quotes something from that page and turns it around to say how we are all wrong.

[D8alus]

yes, now you are definitely beginning to make sense :D. ok, yes it happened at the same instant in time. the thing is that if time is moving at a different speed in a different place, then to observers there it would appear that your punch took LONGER or SHORTER to finish, because they are moving at a higher/lower rate through time. same as to you, they'd be going at fast/slow speed.

But the point I'm making is that the INSTANT doesn't change.

[Jeebs]

As much as this argument sucks huge testicles, D8's right. Observations of an incident don't neccecarily = the instant that an event happens*




*infact, technically, it never does, if you're measuring it to an infinite point.

[D8alus]

Events are relative to when you see them occur. To "see" something, light has to hit it and then reflect back to your eyes. That doesn't occur instanteously so you don't "see" a car drive by at the EXACT instant that it does so. There's no such thing as absolute time.

That doesn't change the fact that the car drove by at a specific instant. See my convo with Frito about the tree falling.

[RhettSarlin]

Events are relative to when you see them occur. To "see" something, light has to hit it and then reflect back to your eyes. That doesn't occur instanteously so you don't "see" a car drive by at the EXACT instant that it does so. There's no such thing as absolute time.
ah, but there i disagree with you....the instant that that car drove by is the actual time at which it drove by, and you can calculate what that instant actually was by measuring the speed of light and the distance the car was away from you. the time at which something happens IS when it happens, not the time at which it is observed.

[jaymay15]

Instants are relative too.

You could punch him in the face, and it could happen when I am 22, but when you are 26. But its all relative. It happened at different times of our life.

[D8alus]

Instants are relative too.

You could punch him in the face, and it could happen when I am 22, but when you are 26. But its all relative. It happened at different times of our life.

That's not even CLOSE to what I'm talking about.

[jaymay15]

That's not even CLOSE to what I'm talking about.
I know, but I figured Id make up some stupid shit like you have been.

[RhettSarlin]

But the point I'm making is that the INSTANT doesn't change.
no, the instant itself doesnt change. the way people perceive it does. if you had a room with one side moving twice as fast time-wise as the other(silly to bring this up because i'm not including motion, but anyway), then you on one side of the room would see people on the other side moving superfast, they'd see you moving superslow. 1 second on your side of the room would be what you'd call an "instant", but that instant would contain twice as much time for the people on the other side.

[D8alus]

I know, but I figured Id make up some stupid shit like you have been.

Except that I'm not making up stupid shit, you're just too thick-headed to consider that I might be right.

[D8alus]

no, the instant itself doesnt change. the way people perceive it does. if you had a room with one side moving twice as fast time-wise as the other(silly to bring this up because i'm not including motion, but anyway), then you on one side of the room would see people on the other side moving superfast, they'd see you moving superslow. 1 second on your side of the room would be what you'd call an "instant", but that instant would contain twice as much time for the people on the other side.

Yes, but I've never said that the perception of time isn't relative. Only that the instants of events isn't relative.

The problem is that you people keep getting caught up on how fast or slow particles are moving instead of the progression of existance.

[Agent of the System]

http://www.taylormade.com.au/billspages/relativity/relativity5.html

There's no such thing as a "universal instant". The "instant" you speak of is ONLY the "instant" if you're observing the event DIRECTLY at the event. Fifty light years away the event won't be observed for fifty years, and that's when it is occurs to those observers.

http://users.chariot.net.au/~gmarts/timefact.htm

"If two clocks are separated by a large distance, different observers will disagree about any time difference between them. Some will say the clocks indicate the same time, others will say one clock is ahead of the other, and still others will say the opposite. Also, different observers will disagree about whether the clocks are running normally, or faster, or slower than normal. But all will agree that the two clocks are running at the same speed."

[jaymay15]

Except that I'm not making up stupid shit, you're just too thick-headed to consider that I might be right.
Is that how you talked to the professors that failed you for turning in work that wasnt backed up with prior studies?

[D8alus]

Is that how you talked to the professors that failed you for turning in work that wasnt backed up with prior studies?

Never happened, why don't you pack it up and move along?

[Jeebs]

QUICKLY!! TO THE NULAG!!!! ol

[Starscream606]

http://www.fanpot.demon.co.uk/kkid/zabka_s.jpg


:(

*edit* I should actually make that my av.

ya johnny, ya! get him a body bag!

[jaymay15]

Never happened, why don't you pack it up and move along?
You make baby jesus cry.

[RhettSarlin]

Yes, but I've never said that the perception of time isn't relative. Only that the instants of events isn't relative.

The problem is that you people keep getting caught up on how fast or slow particles are moving instead of the progression of existance.
i'm not caught up on that, but that's what everyone else is talking about, yes, and you're confusing them to hell with how you're presenting your side of it :P. YES something that happens in one place in one speed of time still happened simultaneously in someplace with a different speed, there's no difference there. the ONLY place there's any difference is in the observation of the people that are actually in the different "timestreams".

[Starscream606]

i'm not really short because measuring is man made and made up.

[Agent of the System]

i'm not really short because measuring is man made and made up.

So is the word and definition of "short"!

[D8alus]

i'm not caught up on that, but that's what everyone else is talking about, yes, and you're confusing them to hell with how you're presenting your side of it :P. YES something that happens in one place in one speed of time still happened simultaneously in someplace with a different speed, there's no difference there. the ONLY place there's any difference is in the observation of the people that are actually in the different "timestreams".

I think we're on the same page now...so make THEM understand it! :P

[jaymay15]

i'm not really short because measuring is man made and made up.
You dont have money either, its a made up word. OMG

[Starscream606]

So is the word and definition of "short"!
ya, no shit :melvin:

[Starscream606]

You dont have money either, its a made up word. OMG
how do we know any of this is real? how do we know our senses are correct?

[jaymay15]

I think we're on the same page now...so make THEM understand it! :P
In your theory, explain why the stopwatch would be off by 2 seconds then, in the twin example.

[jaymay15]

how do we know any of this is real? how do we know our senses are correct?
We are obviously two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl, year after year.

[D8alus]

In your theory, explain why the stopwatch would be off by 2 seconds then, in the twin example.

Because the particles are moving at different speeds.

But at no point during the travel did either of the twins cease existing.

So if it was a 20 hour flight, then for one twin, it was 20 hours and 2 seconds...but both twins existed for the entire 20 hours or 20 hours and 2 seconds.

The twin with the 20 hours didn't cease to exist for 2 seconds.

[Starscream606]

We are obviously two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl, year after year.
if i had a fishtank in the kitchen, i'd walk over to it and throw a fish on the ground and watch it suffocate in the air. right now.

[Agent of the System]

Evidently this "universal timeline" is a poor scientific theory because it's non-falsifiable! There's no way to prove or disprove that an event occurs at the same instant throughout the universe because there's no method of proving that.

[D8alus]

Evidently this "universal timeline" is a poor scientific theory because it's non-falsifiable! There's no way to prove or disprove that an event occurs at the same instant throughout the universe because there's no method of proving that.

Except common sense says it's so.

[Agent of the System]

Except common sense says it's so.

Common sense said the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth too.

[D8alus]

Common sense said the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth too.

No, actually that was arrogance.

[jaymay15]

Because the particles are moving at different speeds.

But at no point during the travel did either of the twins cease existing.

So if it was a 20 hour flight, then for one twin, it was 20 hours and 2 seconds...but both twins existed for the entire 20 hours or 20 hours and 2 seconds.

The twin with the 20 hours didn't cease to exist for 2 seconds.
GO READ EINSTEIN

Because you still dont get it.

[Agent of the System]

No, actually that was arrogance.

No, it was common sense. The Earth appears flat to me. I see no curvature on the horizon. I also see the sun MOVING in the sky in a circular fashion.

[Jeebs]

No, actually that was arrogance.

Eh, if people ever discovered something a few hundered years from now - for the sake of argument, lets say the existence of god - they would say the same thing. It's all relative.

[jaymay15]

if i had a fishtank in the kitchen, i'd walk over to it and throw a fish on the ground and watch it suffocate in the air. right now.
Wish you were here.

:o

[D8alus]

GO READ EINSTEIN

Because you still dont get it.

No, YOU don't get it.

Say there was a third party involved...let's say a security guard with a video screen that showed each of the twins. For him, the flight only lasted 20 hours and 1 second, yet the entire time, he could see both twins and every thing they did from the time they shook hands before the flight till the time they shook hands afterwards.

Now we have three different times for one event that happened simultaneously. Explain it.

[Starscream606]

Eh, if people ever discovered something a few hundered years from now - for the sake of argument, lets say the existence of god - they would say the same thing. It's all relative.
no way asshole. d8alus already said this has nuthin to do with relativity.

[Agent of the System]

COMMON SENSE > Einstein!

[jaymay15]

No, YOU don't get it.

Say there was a third party involved...let's say a security guard with a video screen that showed each of the twins. For him, the flight only lasted 20 hours and 1 second, yet the entire time, he could see both twins and every thing they did from the time they shook hands before the flight till the time they shook hands afterwards.

Now we have three different times for one event that happened simultaneously. Explain it.
Einstein has.

Go read it.

Im done saying it. I cant figure out why you refuse to believe he has covered this.

[D8alus]

No, it was common sense. The Earth appears flat to me. I see no curvature on the horizon. I also see the sun MOVING in the sky in a circular fashion.

Actually, astronomers were onto the whole "earth ain't flat" thing LOOONG before it became common knowledge.

Sailors could also see the curvature of the earth somewhat on the ocean.

[RhettSarlin]

I think we're on the same page now...so make THEM understand it! :P
simple enough :P if they read what i just said in my previous post then i think they'll be on the same page as well....

d8lus was thinking that what we were saying was that the person who experiences more/less time was experiencing the same number of seconds per second, but that at some point they somehow disappeared/vanished, whether it be for a specific block of time or for tiny intervals throughout.

i hate to say it d8, but what i'm pretty sure almost all of them were saying all along is what i was saying there. there was just a conflict of understanding, because you were arguing against a point that noone was trying to defend.

this has been an amusing argument because it appears everyone was saying the same thing, but you thought people were saying something they werent, and noone else had a clue what part of what they were saying you were arguing against. kiss and make up? :)

[Agent of the System]

Actually, astronomers were onto the whole "earth ain't flat" thing LOOONG before it became common knowledge.

Sailors could also see the curvature of the earth somewhat on the ocean.

Yes, on a special part of the ocean you can see the curvature of the Earth. Actually it was the Greeks who determined it based upon the fact that the bottom of boats disappear from view on the horizon first. But if you lived in a landlocked country, it's common sense the Earth is flat. Because COMMON SENSE is better than any scientific evidence.

[Jeebs]

no way asshole. d8alus already said this has nuthin to do with relativity.

27^x-2 = 9^y --> 1.5x-3 = y

Therefore, god exists.

[jaymay15]

simple enough :P if they read what i just said in my previous post then i think they'll be on the same page as well....

d8lus was thinking that what we were saying was that the person who experiences more/less time was experiencing the same number of seconds per second, but that at some point they somehow disappeared/vanished, whether it be for a specific block of time or for tiny intervals throughout.

i hate to say it d8, but what i'm pretty sure almost all of them were saying all along is what i was saying there. there was just a conflict of understanding, because you were arguing against a point that noone was trying to defend.

this has been an amusing argument because it appears everyone was saying the same thing, but you thought people were saying something they werent, and noone else had a clue what part of what they were saying you were arguing against. kiss and make up? :)
No, him saying 'they didnt not exist for 2 seconds' explains nothing. We already know that.

[RhettSarlin]

No, him saying 'they didnt not exist for 2 seconds' explains nothing. We already know that.
yes, you already know that, but he thought that that's what you were SAYING. that's what i mean, it's an argument where people are attacking positions that arent defended :P

[D8alus]

No, him saying 'they didnt not exist for 2 seconds' explains nothing. We already know that.

What I'm saying is that the particles involved move at different speeds, but the fact that the events involved happened in the same sequence of instants for both parties suggests that there is more than just seconds involved.

Yes, their watches are different, but the event didn't take longer for one person or the other...especially when you bring a third party in that observes them both at a different time.

[RhettSarlin]

What I'm saying is that the particles involved move at different speeds, but the fact that the events involved happened in the same sequence of instants for both parties suggests that there is more than just seconds involved.

Yes, their watches are different, but the event didn't take longer for one person or the other...especially when you bring a third party in that observes them both at a different time.
"not taking longer" not being determined by the observation of the people in the separate timestreams.

[Agent of the System]

For the whole twin scenario, if there is a universal timeline, and one twin leaves into space at 12pm and travels at 60% of C or whatever, and returns according to his clock at 8pm, but the clock his twin on Earth says it is 12pm the next day, how exactly is there a universal timeline if time travels at different speeds from different frames of reference? What speed does the universal timeline measure time at?

[Agent of the System]

http://www.sciencelives.com/cosmology.html

"Time was believed in the past to be constant, but now it is seen that it is not. Time is relative to the inertial frame of reference it is being observed from. Although two events may occur simultaneously from one perspective, from a frame of reference moving relative to the first, the events may not be simultaneous."

[Starscream606]

27^x-2 = 9^y --> 1.5x-3 = y

Therefore, god exists.
:wut:

[D8alus]

"not taking longer" not being determined by the observation of the people in the separate timestreams.

Ok, let's say it this way.

Twin A is x, twin b is Y

For each independent twin and for every action x, there is an action y that occurs at the same instant.

Now, in that respect, x=y.

For every x there is only one y and for every y there is one x at any given instant...an instant being an infinitely small measure of time.

Now, Twin A will have less x's and less y's than Twin B because Twin B has more "time" to account for.

However, the security guard will have the same x's and y's for both twin a and B and it will be different than the x's and y's of either twin.

Therefore, the passage of time is relative, but the sequence of events is not.

The present is the same present for everyone involved and it becomes the past at the same rate. Keep in mind, this is not refering to the speed of particles.

But this is all I'll say on the issue.

[Agent of the System]

Here's a good one:

Consider a train car rushing past a person (S) at the side of the tracks, during a thunderstorm. Suppose, just as the center of the car reaches the observer two lightning bolts strike, one at the front of the car, and the other at the rear. Light from the strikes reach S at the same time, and, as each flash traveled the same distance (half the length of the car) S concludes (correctly) that the flashes were simultaneous. What does S¢ , a passenger on the train at the center of the car, see? Well, S sees S¢ rushing by and therefore meet the front flash first and the rear flash some time later. S concludes (correctly) that S¢ should see the flashes as not simultaneous. So far, so good, nothing strange to report. But now, let�s analyze the same experiment from the point-of-view of S¢ . We know that S¢ sees the front flash before the rear flash, but here is the hook! S¢ cannot say that the reason for this is that she is rushing forward to "catch" the front flash, nor "running away" from the rear flash. From S¢ �s perspective she is stationary. The light signals travel equal distances (from the front and rear of the car to the center respectively) and by postulate 2 each beam must be traveling at the speed of light2. Same speed, same distance, different arrival times, therefore different originating times. The two flashes do not occur simultaneously in S¢ ?s reference frame. So S says the flashes were simultaneous and S¢ say they were not (The front one happened first, and the rear one happened second.) and both S and S¢ are correct!

http://vortex.brynmawr.edu/courses/phys101/fall03/notes/lect_notes/ch9/101_ch9.html

[Jeebs]

:wut:

y = 4x^3 + 1/x^2 --> dy/dx = 12x^2 + x^-2

Therefore, God exists.

[RhettSarlin]

http://www.sciencelives.com/cosmology.html

"Time was believed in the past to be constant, but now it is seen that it is not. Time is relative to the inertial frame of reference it is being observed from. Although two events may occur simultaneously from one perspective, from a frame of reference moving relative to the first, the events may not be simultaneous."
that, i'd need to know what they mean exactly. if two events do happen simultaneously then i'm pretty sure they should happen simultaneously from EVERY perspective. but if theyre saying that they APPEAR to happen simultaneously when theyre observed at one location, but that they might not have actually been simultaneous, then i fully agree.

[Agent of the System]

that, i'd need to know what they mean exactly. if two events do happen simultaneously then i'm pretty sure they should happen simultaneously from EVERY perspective. but if theyre saying that they APPEAR to happen simultaneously when theyre observed at one location, but that they might not have actually been simultaneous, then i fully agree.

I provided the example in a prior post:

Consider a train car rushing past a person (S) at the side of the tracks, during a thunderstorm. Suppose, just as the center of the car reaches the observer two lightning bolts strike, one at the front of the car, and the other at the rear. Light from the strikes reach S at the same time, and, as each flash traveled the same distance (half the length of the car) S concludes (correctly) that the flashes were simultaneous. What does S¢ , a passenger on the train at the center of the car, see? Well, S sees S¢ rushing by and therefore meet the front flash first and the rear flash some time later. S concludes (correctly) that S¢ should see the flashes as not simultaneous. So far, so good, nothing strange to report. But now, let�s analyze the same experiment from the point-of-view of S¢ . We know that S¢ sees the front flash before the rear flash, but here is the hook! S¢ cannot say that the reason for this is that she is rushing forward to "catch" the front flash, nor "running away" from the rear flash. From S¢ �s perspective she is stationary. The light signals travel equal distances (from the front and rear of the car to the center respectively) and by postulate 2 each beam must be traveling at the speed of light2. Same speed, same distance, different arrival times, therefore different originating times. The two flashes do not occur simultaneously in S¢ ?s reference frame. So S says the flashes were simultaneous and S¢ say they were not (The front one happened first, and the rear one happened second.) and both S and S¢ are correct!

[RhettSarlin]

Here's a good one:

Consider a train car rushing past a person (S) at the side of the tracks, during a thunderstorm. Suppose, just as the center of the car reaches the observer two lightning bolts strike, one at the front of the car, and the other at the rear. Light from the strikes reach S at the same time, and, as each flash traveled the same distance (half the length of the car) S concludes (correctly) that the flashes were simultaneous. What does S¢ , a passenger on the train at the center of the car, see? Well, S sees S¢ rushing by and therefore meet the front flash first and the rear flash some time later. S concludes (correctly) that S¢ should see the flashes as not simultaneous. So far, so good, nothing strange to report. But now, let�s analyze the same experiment from the point-of-view of S¢ . We know that S¢ sees the front flash before the rear flash, but here is the hook! S¢ cannot say that the reason for this is that she is rushing forward to "catch" the front flash, nor "running away" from the rear flash. From S¢ �s perspective she is stationary. The light signals travel equal distances (from the front and rear of the car to the center respectively) and by postulate 2 each beam must be traveling at the speed of light2. Same speed, same distance, different arrival times, therefore different originating times. The two flashes do not occur simultaneously in S¢ ?s reference frame. So S says the flashes were simultaneous and S¢ say they were not (The front one happened first, and the rear one happened second.) and both S and S¢ are correct!

http://vortex.brynmawr.edu/courses/phys101/fall03/notes/lect_notes/ch9/101_ch9.html


ah, yes. that's fine :)

[Agent of the System]

Yes, and it disproves D8's concept of time since the event occurred simultaneously to one observer and at different times to another, and it wasn't due to "distance" but "motion".

[D8alus]

I provided the example in a prior post:

Consider a train car rushing past a person (S) at the side of the tracks, during a thunderstorm. Suppose, just as the center of the car reaches the observer two lightning bolts strike, one at the front of the car, and the other at the rear. Light from the strikes reach S at the same time, and, as each flash traveled the same distance (half the length of the car) S concludes (correctly) that the flashes were simultaneous. What does S¢ , a passenger on the train at the center of the car, see? Well, S sees S¢ rushing by and therefore meet the front flash first and the rear flash some time later. S concludes (correctly) that S¢ should see the flashes as not simultaneous. So far, so good, nothing strange to report. But now, let�s analyze the same experiment from the point-of-view of S¢ . We know that S¢ sees the front flash before the rear flash, but here is the hook! S¢ cannot say that the reason for this is that she is rushing forward to "catch" the front flash, nor "running away" from the rear flash. From S¢ �s perspective she is stationary. The light signals travel equal distances (from the front and rear of the car to the center respectively) and by postulate 2 each beam must be traveling at the speed of light2. Same speed, same distance, different arrival times, therefore different originating times. The two flashes do not occur simultaneously in S¢ ?s reference frame. So S says the flashes were simultaneous and S¢ say they were not (The front one happened first, and the rear one happened second.) and both S and S¢ are correct!

Ah, but if the electric currents to trigger each light arrived at each light at the same time and the lights activated at the same time, then they WERE simultaneous, regardless of outside observation.

[Agent of the System]

http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/time.html

This disproves what D8 says better than I can.

[Blackferne]

D8 I think I have a way to explain this in terms that might clarify this. (not a flame post)

Let's say that Time from event A to event B is the the song Hotel California as performed by the Eagles. Now lets us also say that that every tape player is made uniquely based on various factors (gravitational pull, speed, whether you are at work on a friday afternoon when time is its slowest). Now the sequence of events is always the same. But if you put those sequences into a different tape player it will always sound different than the one you are used to.

Example. The Earth bound guy hears Hotel California and it sounds right because his whole universe is on Earth Cassette player setting, but if he were to hear the spaceship's Hotel California it would sound so fast it would be all wrong. The events are ALL there, you can't go back in the tape, every sequence must happen in order, but it sounds wrong to him because all of his stuff is wrong for it.

[D8alus]

D8 I think I have a way to explain this in terms that might clarify this. (not a flame post)

Let's say that Time from event A to event B is the the song Hotel California as performed by the Eagles. Now lets us also say that that every tape player is made uniquely based on various factors (gravitational pull, speed, whether you are at work on a friday afternoon when time is its slowest). Now the sequence of events is always the same. But if you put those sequences into a different tape player it will always sound different than the one you are used to.

Example. The Earth bound guy hears Hotel California and it sounds right because his whole universe is on Earth Cassette player setting, but if he were to hear the spaceship's Hotel California it would sound so fast it would be all wrong. The events are ALL there, you can't go back in the tape, every sequence must happen in order, but it sounds wrong to him because all of his stuff is wrong for it.

Not what I'm talking about.

But I'm really giving up this time..I don't know any other way to say this but everyone keeps getting hung up on motion and particle speeds.

[Agent of the System]

Ah, but if the electric currents to trigger each light arrived at each light at the same time and the lights activated at the same time, then they WERE simultaneous, regardless of outside observation.

Only relative to the lightning being stationary. If you are viewing the lightning as being in motion due to your frame of reference, then they don't happen simultaneously. You're talking as if the lightning strikes are stationary and that is the universal stationary position, and everything else moving in relation to the lightning is in motion. But there are other frames of reference that view the lightning as being in motion. There's no such thing as a universal stationary frame of reference. This quoted statement indicates you don't understand relativity.

[D8alus]

Only relative to the lightning being stationary. If you are viewing the lightning as being in motion due to your frame of reference, then they don't happen simultaneously. You're talking as if the lightning strikes are stationary and that is the universal stationary position, and everything else moving in relation to the lightning is in motion. But there are other frames of reference that view the lightning as being in motion. There's no such thing as a universal stationary frame of reference. This quoted statement indicates you don't understand relativity.

NO. NO. NO. NO.

The event only happens ONCE and it has to happen at a specific instant. Therefore, the INSTANT that the event happened is the ONLY instant it happened REGARDLESS of when you, or anyone else, SEES it happen.

[Agent of the System]

NO. NO. NO. NO.

The event only happens ONCE and it has to happen at a specific instant. Therefore, the INSTANT that the event happened is the ONLY instant it happened REGARDLESS of when you, or anyone else, SEES it happen.

Only from the event's exact frame of reference. But from other frames of reference in which that event is mobile and not stationary the event wasn't two simultaneous lightning strikes. There's no such thing as a "universal stationary frame of reference".

[Blackferne]

D8, how would the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle play into your "absolute time" theory?

[D8alus]

Only from the event's exact frame of reference. But from other frames of reference in which that event is mobile and not stationary the event wasn't two simultaneous lightning strikes. There's no such thing as a "universal stationary frame of reference".

Yes, there IS.

Otherwise, the event would happen each time someone sees it happen.

Gah, I said I was going to quit twice now...third time's the charm..I'm going to go make lunch and play Jade Empire.

[Agent of the System]

Yes, there IS.

Otherwise, the event would happen each time someone sees it happen.

Gah, I said I was going to quit twice now...third time's the charm..I'm going to go make lunch and play Jade Empire.
I think I'll just conclude by calling you an absolute fucking moron for saying there is an universal stationary frame of reference.

[D8alus]

I think I'll just conclude by calling you an absolute fucking moron for saying there is an universal stationary frame of reference.

And I'll conclude by calling you an absolute fucking moron for thinking that the same event occurs more than once.

[Agent of the System]

And I'll conclude by calling you an absolute fucking moron for thinking that the same event occurs more than once.

You just don't fucking get it. You're saying Relativity is wrong. It's a joke.

[$1.25]

thread summary: d8s wrong, again.

[D8alus]

You just don't fucking get it. You're saying Relativity is wrong. It's a joke.

No, you fucking shitbrick, I'm saying that I'm NOT FUCKING TALKING ABOUT RELATIVITY.

[jaymay15]

thread summary: d8s wrong, again.

:qfe:

You just don't fucking get it. You're saying Relativity is wrong. It's a joke.
:qfe:

[$1.25]

but u are talking about relativity d8, even if you dont realize it.

[Arzen]

Who put this in nulag? I hate you.

[D8alus]

but u are talking about relativity d8, even if you dont realize it.

No, YOU guys are talking about relativity. I'm talking about something completely different...but you can't seem to grasp that.

[Agent of the System]

I wonder if D8 would go insane if we started talking about Quantum physics with crazy stuff like when particles are presented with two possible pathways they take both and shit.

And regardless of whether you think you're talking about relativity or not, if you're talking about TIME, then you're talking about relativity. Unless you're talking about the magazine.

[D8alus]

I wonder if D8 would go insane if we started talking about Quantum physics with crazy stuff like when particles are presented with two possible pathways they take both and shit.

And regardless of whether you think you're talking about relativity or not, if you're talking about TIME, then you're talking about relativity. Unless you're talking about the magazine.

No, I'm not.

[Agent of the System]

I like the wikipedia article of time:

For everyday purposes, and even for quite accurate measurements, this view is sufficient. However, the scientific understanding of time underwent a revolution in the early part of the twentieth century with the development of relativity theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_theory). Modern physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics) treats time as a feature of spacetime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime), a notion which challenges intuitive conceptions of simultaneity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneity) and the flow of time in a linear fashion.

And:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics

Einstein's theory was motivated by the assumption that no point in the universe can be a 'center', and that correspondingly, physics must act the same in all inertial frames (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame). His simple and elegant theory shows that time is relative to the inertial frame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame), i.e. that there is no 'universal clock'. Each inertial frame has its own local geometry.

[Blackferne]

However as far as you guys are concerned, my inertial frame and local geometry is the right one. Failure to comply will result in your death*!
















*mild dislike

[Qwo]

Snore.

[Pearl Campbell]

Another topic where D8 is wrong completely, just like the weight-mass topic and the Matrix topic.

[CNIdog]

Another topic where D8 is wrong completely, just like the weight-mass topic and the Matrix topic.

Links? I want to collect them all!

[D8alus]

Another topic where D8 is wrong completely, just like the weight-mass topic and the Matrix topic.

Matrix?

oooooooh...you mean the one where I was talking out of my ass for the whole thread?

Also, I'm not wrong in this thread.

[Cybren]

Yeah, try to save face why don't you.

[Liberal Floridian]

D8 was going for a physics major, before he dropped out. Just like Mekk!

[CNIdog]

Oh shit.

I'm going for a physics major.

[Cybren]

Mekk dropped out?