If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Phys Org2)   In the 106 years since Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, scientists have largely accepted Time as Space's 4th dimension. A bold new theory says Time exists independently of Space, and Einstein can just suck it   (phys.org) divider line 196
    More: Interesting, Einstein, energy density, virtual particles  
•       •       •

14044 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Apr 2012 at 7:36 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



196 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-14 05:43:23 PM
But Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that the slow clocks can better be described by the relative velocity between the two reference frames, which the clocks measure, not which the clocks are apart of.

FROGDAMMITSOMUCH! !
 
2012-04-14 06:30:53 PM
Time Cube disproved all of this years ago.
 
2012-04-14 06:42:52 PM
Without space, there is nothing to have duration in.
 
2012-04-14 06:49:24 PM

downstairs: Time Cube disproved all of this years ago.


The world isn't ready for Time Cube. It may never be.
 
2012-04-14 06:52:53 PM
Damned 4D Minkowski spacetime deniers.
 
2012-04-14 07:09:43 PM
images.wikia.com
 
2012-04-14 07:37:47 PM
Hey, it's always 5 o'clock somewhere!
 
2012-04-14 07:40:31 PM
Wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey
 
2012-04-14 07:40:33 PM
Fourth??

I'm living in the SIXTH dimension!

http://www.forbiddenzonethemovie.com/
 
2012-04-14 07:41:10 PM
They really are going to far to justify Han's Kessel Run claim now
 
2012-04-14 07:42:03 PM
Of course they're independent; otherwise time would stop when my clock's battery ran out.
 
2012-04-14 07:42:09 PM
baconwrappedmedia.com

They fell for another one of my classic pranks.

Snicker, snicker
 
2012-04-14 07:42:25 PM
Anyone who's ever smoked any good weed knows THAT.
 
2012-04-14 07:44:49 PM
files.myopera.com
 
2012-04-14 07:46:44 PM
Time. Doesn't. Exist. It's an idea we invented to organize our behavior and measure motion. Molecular decay isn't time; we make it into time by counting it.
 
2012-04-14 07:46:58 PM
Yea, Einstein is wrong but the AGW group is infallible.
 
2012-04-14 07:47:23 PM
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
 
2012-04-14 07:48:18 PM

Digitalstrange: They really are going to far to justify Han's Kessel Run claim now


*golf clap*
 
2012-04-14 07:48:52 PM
A stitch in time saves... What?
 
2012-04-14 07:50:59 PM
Yeah, but who knows what Minkowski was really up to? He had no constant. His brain was all screwed up.

media.washingtonpost.com
 
2012-04-14 07:51:08 PM
 
2012-04-14 07:53:55 PM

This About That: Damned 4D Minkowski spacetime deniers.


They aren't denying it; they're saying that Minkowski was right and that "time" is an artificial dimension, not an aspect of space.

FTA:

In this framework, the three spatial dimensions are intuitively visualized, while the time dimension is mathematically represented by an imaginary coordinate, and cannot be visualized in a concrete way.

Poincare and Minkowski both said time was an abstraction; that's what all that "imaginary coordinate" stuff is about. It's a useful abstraction, it's a sensible abstraction, but it's still an abstraction that can't be accurately visualized or described because it doesn't exist outside the human think-pan. It is useful to treat events "as happening" in a time-dimension because doing so provides all sorts of information we humans find useful, but it's just a thought-experiment.
 
2012-04-14 07:53:55 PM
ah... hmm... if I put two clocks on the same platform and they both undergo the same acceleration they will show the same time no matter their orientation. It's only when you compare clocks that have different acceraltions does the time affects show.

This just sounds like they are re-doing the Michelson-morley experiment and tada! getting the same answers.
 
2012-04-14 07:54:19 PM
Write your letters in the sand for the day I take your hand in the land that our grandchildren knew...
 
2012-04-14 07:54:59 PM
Sorry subby, the science is settled and there is a consensus, so obviously Big Oil is funding this new study.

/sorry in advance for being snarky..
 
2012-04-14 07:58:37 PM

whither_apophis: ah... hmm... if I put two clocks on the same platform and they both undergo the same acceleration they will show the same time no matter their orientation. It's only when you compare clocks that have different acceraltions does the time affects show.

This just sounds like they are re-doing the Michelson-morley experiment and tada! getting the same answers.


No, they're saying that the difference is a result of the clock's different velocities, which the clocks are measuring. They're saying that motion through space will cause clocks to "count" differently, not that the clocks are also moving through an additional time dimension.
 
2012-04-14 08:03:01 PM
It took 106 years for someone to verify a theory with an experiment?

WTF, Science, WTF?
 
2012-04-14 08:06:33 PM
C'mon son, everyone knows that time is orthogonal to the x, y, and z axes, amirite?
 
2012-04-14 08:08:07 PM

Heron: Time. Doesn't. Exist. It's an idea we invented to organize our behavior and measure motion. Molecular decay isn't time; we make it into time by counting it.


This whole Minkowski math is based on the description of physical directional comparisons using the future and past time cones. I think Sorli is challenging the 'hypersurface of the present' and trying to separate it from euclidean space. The changes aren't questioned, nor the fact that they can be measured and calibrated against one another. So he's not questioning the construct of time as we know it, just that it is interwoven with space. The implications could be profound, but wouldn't change the existence of the dimensions of time.
 
2012-04-14 08:08:11 PM
www.jimis-cyberstore.com
 
2012-04-14 08:08:49 PM
Meh, "scientists" in random armpits of the world come up with all sorts of shiat theories all the time. I can't remember a single one that has ever been proven correct.
 
2012-04-14 08:10:48 PM
the theory of special relativity, on the other hand, has the nice property that in addition to being beautiful from a mathematical point of view, that it correctly describes an incredible number of physical phenomena which would otherwise be quantifiably different, and has not correctly been cited as the fault in any observable quantity ever.
 
2012-04-14 08:11:13 PM
Can we develop and use a technology that functions beyond our perception of the third dimension? A 4D or a 5D device?
 
2012-04-14 08:12:38 PM
Buckaroo Banzai skipped straight to the 8th Dimension.
 
2012-04-14 08:13:19 PM

Heron: It's an idea we invented to organize our behavior and measure motion. Molecular decay isn't time; we make it into time by counting it.


But the fact that we can measure it makes it real. Or else couldn't you apply the same logic and say that L W & H are only ideas we invented to organize our behavior.

Heron: They're saying that motion through space will cause clocks to "count" differently, not that the clocks are also moving through an additional time dimension.


Didn't we already know that?
 
2012-04-14 08:16:14 PM

whither_apophis: ah... hmm... if I put two clocks on the same platform and they both undergo the same acceleration they will show the same time no matter their orientation. It's only when you compare clocks that have different acceraltions does the time affects show.

This just sounds like they are re-doing the Michelson-morley experiment and tada! getting the same answers.


This would disprove that gravity effects time, not that acceleration effects time.
The acceleration effect has been proven true.
Einstein gets 1/2.
 
2012-04-14 08:17:08 PM
this is the physics equivalent of intelligent design

kook
 
2012-04-14 08:20:27 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Yea, Einstein is wrong but the AGW group is infallible.


Aw sweetie, did you derp again? Let Mommy wipe that nasty old derp off your chin. There! All better!
 
2012-04-14 08:22:02 PM
give me doughnuts
`
Without space, there is nothing to have duration in.
`
A vacuum (the physical property, not the portable sucktation device) experiences duration with-out 'space'.
 
2012-04-14 08:22:26 PM
Oh fark, I wandered into a thread full of coke bottle thick glass wearing pencil necks with front pockets full of leaky ink pens.
 
2012-04-14 08:23:10 PM
Until there are some experiments that can conclusively back up this new theory and that cannot be explained by GR, I'm remaining agnostic about it.

\I'm agnostic about string theory, too
\\empiricism for the win!
 
2012-04-14 08:23:16 PM
I'm pretty sure there's a falling whale and a bowl of petunias involved here, somewhere
 
2012-04-14 08:23:16 PM

Heron: Time. Doesn't. Exist. It's an idea we invented to organize our behavior and measure motion. Molecular decay isn't time; we make it into time by counting it.


Yep. Time is a human contrivance. Think about it. Humans--every single one of them, throughout recorded (and maybe unrecorded) history--have had a penchant for counting things. Maybe that is what "makes us human."

Now, Realtivity...There's a study!
 
2012-04-14 08:25:55 PM
Man, I am way too sober to read that article.
 
2012-04-14 08:28:12 PM

casual disregard: Can we develop and use a technology that functions beyond our perception of the third dimension? A 4D or a 5D device?


Those already exist. You just can't tell it.
 
2012-04-14 08:28:54 PM

bonerici: this is the physics equivalent of intelligent design

kook


I don't think so, it seems to me that they are just saying that time is independent of space and could have existed prior to space. I've heard some say that time couldn't have existed prior to the big bang because nothing had happened yet so there was no "before" or "after" yet.
 
2012-04-14 08:32:35 PM

give me doughnuts: Without space, there is nothing to have duration in.


Without light bulbs, there'd be no light.
 
2012-04-14 08:36:26 PM
106 years? It doesn't seem that long. I've got to slow down.
 
2012-04-14 08:36:44 PM

Boatmech: Without space, there is nothing to have duration in.
`
A vacuum (the physical property, not the portable sucktation device) experiences duration with-out 'space'.


Er.. 'space' and 'vacuum' don't really have any particular relation to one another.
 
2012-04-14 08:37:01 PM
casual disregard:
`
Can we develop and use a technology that
functions beyond our perception of the third
dimension? A 4D or a 5D device?
`
Yes, think of electron microscopes (small scale) and radio telescopes for astronomy at the larger scale.
We can't actually see the atoms or the radio waves.
 
Displayed 50 of 196 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report