Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Relative Time, a plea for help

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 3:26:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I struggle to understand the concept of relative time I am hoping that someone can assist me. This has something that has bothered me for an extremely long time and I must first warn whoever attempt to help me that I can be extremely hostile when confused.

Although I try to read and research, I keep abandoning the science of it because the philosophical part of it is completely baffling to me.

I don't believe time actually exist, nor do I believe space actually exists. I believe that our PERCEPTION of time and space exists.

Being that our perception of the universe is based on a bunch of moving molecules, a bunch of flawed moving molecules, that relay sensory information in a way that is nowhere near immediate or reliable, I find a lot of this "relative time" stuff to be falsely derived, that the notion of time moving faster or slower is purely based on flaws of perception, much like how a complex syllogism for a debate can lead to a flawed conclusion through the accumulation of flawed definitions or logic.

Is there someone out there with a strong, solid understanding of time who would be willing to convince me that relative time is true?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 3:27:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, I am not sure why, but in the post prior, I sound like I am having trouble with the tenses of the English language. I think I'm losing my mind just thinking of this topic. Sorry for the grammar issues.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 3:34:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Time is measurement, what's measured is relative. It's a thing, it's a constant, we see the constant.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 3:47:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Thanks for not trolling, I'm really kind of desperate.

The problem with this, as with the countless other explanations and experiments offered, is that they rely on an observer to interpret the data we receive from light.

There is a huge difference between time changing for an object and time APPEARING to change for an observer.

Time itself is not changed, nor does it move slower in a location around the thing traveling, it's only the perceiver, whoever it is that interprets these light waves that sees some type of alteration in time.

Another issue I have is this notion of experiments in which clocks move faster or slower after traveling at high speeds or going around the world, etc.

Clocks are not a proper measuring instrument for time. Clocks don't have a physical mechanism that changes itself for its environment, such as thermometers or other measures of matter or energy. To say that time changes for one watch because two synchronized watches are a second off after one circles the world at high speed is absurd. The conclusion doesn't match the evidence because the process assumes something incorrect about the measuring device.

What it boils down to is this: Time shouldn't have anything to do with the speed of light. Light is what we use to perceive motion and change, and the speed of light matters to us as perceivers because we rely on it to derive the notion of time. If it were possible for time to be truly relative, it would have nothing to do with perception, but simply what IS and what EXISTS.

The very fact that we are basing these notions of relative time on the speed of light shows that all of this "relative time" nonsense is flawed from the foundation.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 4:09:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I only skimmed over that really, but time doesn't existent independent of space, that's what the whole space-time thing is about. Time and space are the progression (for want of a better word), always in perfect harmony, measurements dependent upon the observer. There is, however, still a progression, just not with time of old as some independent god watching over it. I'm not sure if we're disagreeing all that much here actually, but the philosophical implications of this aren't exactly massive.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 5:34:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I doubt it was, though? In my defense, if required, I was also just going out the door, lol.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 7:30:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 3:26:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I struggle to understand the concept of relative time I am hoping that someone can assist me. This has something that has bothered me for an extremely long time and I must first warn whoever attempt to help me that I can be extremely hostile when confused.

Yes you can be hostile. That's probably why you are a DDOer -4- LiFE

Although I try to read and research, I keep abandoning the science of it because the philosophical part of it is completely baffling to me.

I don't believe time actually exist, nor do I believe space actually exists. I believe that our PERCEPTION of time and space exists.

Being that our perception of the universe is based on a bunch of moving molecules, a bunch of flawed moving molecules, that relay sensory information in a way that is nowhere near immediate or reliable, I find a lot of this "relative time" stuff to be falsely derived, that the notion of time moving faster or slower is purely based on flaws of perception, much like how a complex syllogism for a debate can lead to a flawed conclusion through the accumulation of flawed definitions or logic.

Is there someone out there with a strong, solid understanding of time who would be willing to convince me that relative time is true?

We all have to train our minds to think relativistically. So the way I like to look at it is that time is just another dimension like space. If I were moving North at 100mph, (i.e., 0 mph in any other direction), then turned due Northwest, then I'd sacrifice much of my Northerly speed to do it. Likewise, if I'm traveling at 0 mph through the dimensions of space (relative to certain other observers, of course) then I'll be traveling at full speed through time. Once I start moving through space, my velocity through time is sacrificed, just like turning West while traveling North. This would be relatively straightforward, if not for a very unusual ratio of time to space (you need to take the square root of [s^2-t^2]). It works out that you have to be traveling at 87%c before you sacrifice 50% of your speed through the time dimension.

As far as why this is, well, we have to think of the concept of spacetime. Spacetime is "not space... not time, it's not a combination of the two" (Peter Russell, Primacy of Consciousness). It's just the medium through which we experience reality. It might have just four dimensions, but it's thought that there are likely 11 dimensions of spacetime. Space and time are just the pieces of spacetime we have apprehended at the moment and they could very well be just tips of a much larger iceberg... perhaps space and time are just pieces of something larger (the aether?) that explains more about the universe including how life takes hold.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 8:15:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's not that hard to understand. Say you have two photons or whatever moving away from each other, they're going to stretch the sh*t out of space so as to keep the relative velocity between them at the speed of light, and it all stays the same for everything besides them too. It's just one massive constant. The photons will actually slow down, but they're not going to be measured as having slowed down because everything else is warped harmoniously.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 8:29:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 8:15:06 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
It's not that hard to understand. Say you have two photons or whatever moving away from each other, they're going to stretch the sh*t out of space so as to keep the relative velocity between them at the speed of light, and it all stays the same for everything besides them too. It's just one massive constant. The photons will actually slow down, but they're not going to be measured as having slowed down because everything else is warped harmoniously.

They'll both push space in front of them, basically, stretching the distance between them, and compressing the distance between them and anything they're moving towards, and so you get your constant measurements.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 8:37:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And then there's also some increase in size of matter as it increases in speed, which is where you get that whole bit about people aging less as they approach light speed, but which is also compensated for, or corrected for, as regards everything else. It's all just movement. Time is actually still kind of a thing in and of itself though. There is this point, then a later point, there's a sequence. Meh. F*ck the universe, IMO.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 8:44:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 3:26:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I struggle to understand the concept of relative time I am hoping that someone can assist me. This has something that has bothered me for an extremely long time and I must first warn whoever attempt to help me that I can be extremely hostile when confused.

Although I try to read and research, I keep abandoning the science of it because the philosophical part of it is completely baffling to me.

I don't believe time actually exist, nor do I believe space actually exists. I believe that our PERCEPTION of time and space exists.

I find this baffling, is your philosophical position Idealism? If time and space are contingent upon a mind perceiving them, then did the universe come into being with the first perceiving mind? How did the perceiving mind come to be? Can you expand on this?

Being that our perception of the universe is based on a bunch of moving molecules, a bunch of flawed moving molecules, that relay sensory information in a way that is nowhere near immediate or reliable, I find a lot of this "relative time" stuff to be falsely derived, that the notion of time moving faster or slower is purely based on flaws of perception, much like how a complex syllogism for a debate can lead to a flawed conclusion through the accumulation of flawed definitions or logic.

Is there someone out there with a strong, solid understanding of time who would be willing to convince me that relative time is true?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 8:53:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 8:44:36 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2014 3:26:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I struggle to understand the concept of relative time I am hoping that someone can assist me. This has something that has bothered me for an extremely long time and I must first warn whoever attempt to help me that I can be extremely hostile when confused.

Although I try to read and research, I keep abandoning the science of it because the philosophical part of it is completely baffling to me.

I don't believe time actually exist, nor do I believe space actually exists. I believe that our PERCEPTION of time and space exists.

I find this baffling, is your philosophical position Idealism? If time and space are contingent upon a mind perceiving them, then did the universe come into being with the first perceiving mind? How did the perceiving mind come to be? Can you expand on this?

Isn't this what most people who have anything to say about quantum mechanics on the internet are all going on about? I find that absolutely baffling. Like Subutai in that other thread, for example. Perfectly happy with the universe not existing only unless we're looking. And yet he makes argument against god with that - because everything isn't collapsed by something all-observing. Nothingness is tending to human needs by being something where humans are? Uhm... god's chosen anyone?

Being that our perception of the universe is based on a bunch of moving molecules, a bunch of flawed moving molecules, that relay sensory information in a way that is nowhere near immediate or reliable, I find a lot of this "relative time" stuff to be falsely derived, that the notion of time moving faster or slower is purely based on flaws of perception, much like how a complex syllogism for a debate can lead to a flawed conclusion through the accumulation of flawed definitions or logic.

Is there someone out there with a strong, solid understanding of time who would be willing to convince me that relative time is true?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 8:55:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Of course I'm completely and utterly an idealist (lol), but I'm not going to try to make such a retarded argument against god, nor do I suspect that science has proven idealism.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 9:08:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 8:53:13 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 3/22/2014 8:44:36 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2014 3:26:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I struggle to understand the concept of relative time I am hoping that someone can assist me. This has something that has bothered me for an extremely long time and I must first warn whoever attempt to help me that I can be extremely hostile when confused.

Although I try to read and research, I keep abandoning the science of it because the philosophical part of it is completely baffling to me.

I don't believe time actually exist, nor do I believe space actually exists. I believe that our PERCEPTION of time and space exists.

I find this baffling, is your philosophical position Idealism? If time and space are contingent upon a mind perceiving them, then did the universe come into being with the first perceiving mind? How did the perceiving mind come to be? Can you expand on this?

Isn't this what most people who have anything to say about quantum mechanics on the internet are all going on about? I find that absolutely baffling. Like Subutai in that other thread, for example. Perfectly happy with the universe not existing only unless we're looking. And yet he makes argument against god with that - because everything isn't collapsed by something all-observing. Nothingness is tending to human needs by being something where humans are? Uhm... god's chosen anyone?

I think we are reading different things, I've not come across this.

Being that our perception of the universe is based on a bunch of moving molecules, a bunch of flawed moving molecules, that relay sensory information in a way that is nowhere near immediate or reliable, I find a lot of this "relative time" stuff to be falsely derived, that the notion of time moving faster or slower is purely based on flaws of perception, much like how a complex syllogism for a debate can lead to a flawed conclusion through the accumulation of flawed definitions or logic.

Is there someone out there with a strong, solid understanding of time who would be willing to convince me that relative time is true?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 9:10:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 9:08:10 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2014 8:53:13 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 3/22/2014 8:44:36 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/22/2014 3:26:37 PM, Kleptin wrote:
I struggle to understand the concept of relative time I am hoping that someone can assist me. This has something that has bothered me for an extremely long time and I must first warn whoever attempt to help me that I can be extremely hostile when confused.

Although I try to read and research, I keep abandoning the science of it because the philosophical part of it is completely baffling to me.

I don't believe time actually exist, nor do I believe space actually exists. I believe that our PERCEPTION of time and space exists.

I find this baffling, is your philosophical position Idealism? If time and space are contingent upon a mind perceiving them, then did the universe come into being with the first perceiving mind? How did the perceiving mind come to be? Can you expand on this?

Isn't this what most people who have anything to say about quantum mechanics on the internet are all going on about? I find that absolutely baffling. Like Subutai in that other thread, for example. Perfectly happy with the universe not existing only unless we're looking. And yet he makes argument against god with that - because everything isn't collapsed by something all-observing. Nothingness is tending to human needs by being something where humans are? Uhm... god's chosen anyone?

I think we are reading different things, I've not come across this.

Dude... How?

Being that our perception of the universe is based on a bunch of moving molecules, a bunch of flawed moving molecules, that relay sensory information in a way that is nowhere near immediate or reliable, I find a lot of this "relative time" stuff to be falsely derived, that the notion of time moving faster or slower is purely based on flaws of perception, much like how a complex syllogism for a debate can lead to a flawed conclusion through the accumulation of flawed definitions or logic.

Is there someone out there with a strong, solid understanding of time who would be willing to convince me that relative time is true?
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 9:18:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'll help explain it to you.

Relative Time comes from a conclusion Albert Einstein made about the speed of light. He concluded using very careful logic that if the laws of physics were the same everywhere in the universe, from every possible inertial reference frame (speed), that this would require the speed of light to be the same no matter the speed of the observer.

Well, in order for this to be true it had implications on the time, length, and mass of the observer as he moved through space.

As an object approached the speed of light, which had to be the same to every possible observer, no matter his speed, it required the object to contract in length by a specific amount, for it's sense of time to slow down by a specific amount, and for its mass to increase by a specific amount (an object could never reach the speed of light if his original conclusion was true, so that meant that as more energy was provided to it to make it accelerate, it's mass would have to increase by an exact amount to keep it from ever traveling at the speed of light).

When Einstein worked out his solutions, he discovered the following equations (the special relativity formulas):

Mass = Mass0 / ( 1 - [ v^2 / c^2 ] )
length = length0 ( 1 - [ v^2 / c^2 ] )
time = time0 / ( 1 - [ v^2 / c^2 ] )

where mass0 and length0 are the mass and length of the moving object if it were stationary (not moving) and time0 were a unit of time escapement (second, minute, hour). V and C are the velocity of the object and the speed of light respectively. Mass and length are the mass and length of the moving object from the perspective of a stationary observer. Time is the amount of time it takes for the original unit of time escapement to elapse for the stationary observer; the moving object's sense of time passes more slowly (but it isn't aware of it).

The interesting part about all of this is that the moving object still perceives its mass, its own length, and its sense of time progression to remain the same, while the stationary object perceives the length, mass, and time progression of the moving object to have transformed, but in an exact way so that it still measures the speed of light to remain the same!

Einstein actually wasn't the first to discover, he employed it in his Special Theory of Relativity.

Previous scientists (and mathematicians) had proposed exactly identical formulas a few years before Einstein, but they only proposed them as a possible explanation for the problems they were working on. Albert Einstein indicated that they had to be true if the speed of light were always the same and the laws of physics were always true from every reference frame.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 9:21:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 9:18:18 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
I'll help explain it to you.

Relative Time comes from a conclusion Albert Einstein made about the speed of light. He concluded using very careful logic that if the laws of physics were the same everywhere in the universe, from every possible inertial reference frame (speed), that this would require the speed of light to be the same no matter the speed of the observer.

Well, in order for this to be true it had implications on the time, length, and mass of the observer as he moved through space.

As an object approached the speed of light, which had to be the same to every possible observer, no matter his speed, it required the object to contract in length by a specific amount, for it's sense of time to slow down by a specific amount, and for its mass to increase by a specific amount (an object could never reach the speed of light if his original conclusion was true, so that meant that as more energy was provided to it to make it accelerate, it's mass would have to increase by an exact amount to keep it from ever traveling at the speed of light).

When Einstein worked out his solutions, he discovered the following equations (the special relativity formulas):

Mass = Mass0 / ( 1 - [ v^2 / c^2 ] )
length = length0 ( 1 - [ v^2 / c^2 ] )
time = time0 / ( 1 - [ v^2 / c^2 ] )

where mass0 and length0 are the mass and length of the moving object if it were stationary (not moving) and time0 were a unit of time escapement (second, minute, hour). V and C are the velocity of the object and the speed of light respectively. Mass and length are the mass and length of the moving object from the perspective of a stationary observer. Time is the amount of time it takes for the original unit of time escapement to elapse for the stationary observer; the moving object's sense of time passes more slowly (but it isn't aware of it).

The interesting part about all of this is that the moving object still perceives its mass, its own length, and its sense of time progression to remain the same, while the stationary object perceives the length, mass, and time progression of the moving object to have transformed, but in an exact way so that it still measures the speed of light to remain the same!

Einstein actually wasn't the first to discover, he employed it in his Special Theory of Relativity.

Previous scientists (and mathematicians) had proposed exactly identical formulas a few years before Einstein, but they only proposed them as a possible explanation for the problems they were working on. Albert Einstein indicated that they had to be true if the speed of light were always the same and the laws of physics were always true from every reference frame.

Whoops, I forgot to add the square-root operator:

Mass = Mass0 / ( 1 - [ v^2 / c^2 ] )^1/2
length = length0 ( 1 - [ v^2 / c^2 ] )^1/2
time = time0 / ( 1 - [ v^2 / c^2 ] )^1/2
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 9:35:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Another correction:

This

"Well, in order for this to be true it had implications on the time, length, and mass of the observer as he moved through space."

Should be this:

""Well, in order for this to be true it had implications on the time, length, and mass of the object as it moved through space."
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 9:40:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 3:47:07 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Thanks for not trolling, I'm really kind of desperate.

The problem with this, as with the countless other explanations and experiments offered, is that they rely on an observer to interpret the data we receive from light.

There is a huge difference between time changing for an object and time APPEARING to change for an observer.

Time itself is not changed, nor does it move slower in a location around the thing traveling, it's only the perceiver, whoever it is that interprets these light waves that sees some type of alteration in time.

Another issue I have is this notion of experiments in which clocks move faster or slower after traveling at high speeds or going around the world, etc.

Clocks are not a proper measuring instrument for time. Clocks don't have a physical mechanism that changes itself for its environment, such as thermometers or other measures of matter or energy. To say that time changes for one watch because two synchronized watches are a second off after one circles the world at high speed is absurd. The conclusion doesn't match the evidence because the process assumes something incorrect about the measuring device.

What it boils down to is this: Time shouldn't have anything to do with the speed of light. Light is what we use to perceive motion and change, and the speed of light matters to us as perceivers because we rely on it to derive the notion of time. If it were possible for time to be truly relative, it would have nothing to do with perception, but simply what IS and what EXISTS.

The very fact that we are basing these notions of relative time on the speed of light shows that all of this "relative time" nonsense is flawed from the foundation.

Time is a measurement of change. We have no other references than that, no "absolute standard".

So if it would "feel" like time sped up, vs. time "actually" speeding up, there's no difference we can discern. There's no way to tell what the "absolute" time is from within the frame of reference. Same thing with distance.

If the only tools you can possibly use are relativistic, then for all intents and purposes the thing being measured is relativistic.

If you want to appeal to an "absolute" time, then the question would become: from whence does it come? How is it measured? Whose version of "one second" is correct?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 10:04:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There is an absolute progression, but then it's only something you'd see outside of the universe and then what the f*ck is time out there. Nothing makes sense, f*ck science, god is my dad.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 11:41:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 8:44:36 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
I find this baffling, is your philosophical position Idealism? If time and space are contingent upon a mind perceiving them, then did the universe come into being with the first perceiving mind? How did the perceiving mind come to be? Can you expand on this?

I think that the universe exists, regardless of an observer, that's point one. However, i don't think that space and time necessarily exist without one. Space is derived based on the distance between two objects, and observers are the only ones who distinguish between objects. Realistically, all of existence is just *one* thing, the big bang. The big bang never stopped, it's still going on.

Similarly, time is just a derived concept because observers see change from moment to moment. Realistically, there is no such thing as change because, as I stated before, all of existence is just one continuous physiochemical reaction.

Time and space only exist the same way numbers do. When we see two apples, they don't really represent two ideal different, separate apples. It's all part of the same reaction. Mathematics is a measurement tool we use to predict other occurrences in the universe, but that doesn't mean that it is an intrinsic truth or that it is natural. It is fundamentally unnatural because the axioms of mathematics require assumptions that only observers can make.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 11:44:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Can someone address my concern about the speed of light and relative time?

Light is the fastest medium by which we receive sensory input or detect change and motion. From that change and motion come our sense of time. Why would something moving faster than light show relative time? The fact that we depend on light to derive a sense of time only shows that faster than light speed travel messes up our ability to detect and derive notions of time, it does not imply that time itself changes or moves differently.

I'm so confused.

When people talk about relative time, do they mean self-perception, or is there really some WARP in the fabric of space-time that makes things different? And if so, WHY?

Is time a THING?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 1:44:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/23/2014 11:44:48 AM, Kleptin wrote:
Can someone address my concern about the speed of light and relative time?

Light is the fastest medium by which we receive sensory input or detect change and motion. From that change and motion come our sense of time. Why would something moving faster than light show relative time? The fact that we depend on light to derive a sense of time only shows that faster than light speed travel messes up our ability to detect and derive notions of time, it does not imply that time itself changes or moves differently.

I don't know anything about faster than light speed travel, but where you're going wrong, I think, is in still thinking of time as something distinct from everything else. Again, there's a progression, sure, things change, but a constant is maintained between absolutely everything always, this being E=mc2. Time is but the slowing down of the clock as the clock increases in speed, the energy put into the stretching or compression of space besides, progression through that space always in accordance with the constant. It's not a measurement, but a being. It is a relative component of the uniform progression. Look, all right, it is a measurement, but sh*t is happening.

I'm so confused.

When people talk about relative time, do they mean self-perception, or is there really some WARP in the fabric of space-time that makes things different? And if so, WHY?

Yes, there's a warp. As to why, how the f*ck am I supposed to know, lol.

Is time a THING?

Pretty much.