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  
•       •       •

14043 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 08:38:02 PM
Time is just the perception of decay, orbits and ourselves. We are just information carrying, data transferring symbiotic creatures. No better than bacteria, oh we have neat ways of going about our functions, but the end result is the same, only slower than bacteria.
Time is a human construct..
Motion changing time would seem to negate time. the earth spins, the solar system moves though space, even the universe is in motion. dilation of measured time, i suspect, is a function of mass on the measuring device...
/I went to far..amirite?
 
2012-04-14 08:40:48 PM

The Iron duke: Time is just the perception of decay, orbits and ourselves. We are just information carrying, data transferring symbiotic creatures. No better than bacteria, oh we have neat ways of going about our functions, but the end result is the same, only slower than bacteria.
Time is a human construct..
Motion changing time would seem to negate time. the earth spins, the solar system moves though space, even the universe is in motion. dilation of measured time, i suspect, is a function of mass on the measuring device...
/I went to far..amirite?


I get it, but which is cause, and which is effect?
 
2012-04-14 08:40:58 PM

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


space is only needed in the lower dimensions.
 
2012-04-14 08:42:41 PM

Boatmech: 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.


Our minds see in 6d, given that 4d is a point in time, and 5D is two points in time, and 6 is travelling along the two points. They don't see them clearly and measurably, but can perceive the existence and path. We also can't choose our placement. If we learn that, all bets are off.
 
2012-04-14 08:44:32 PM

r1niceboy: Boatmech: 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.

Our minds see in 6d, given that 4d is a point in time, and 5D is two points in time, and 6 is travelling along the two points. They don't see them clearly and measurably, but can perceive the existence and path. We also can't choose our placement. If we learn that, all bets are off.


The question made me think of the GRACE satellites.
 
2012-04-14 08:45:17 PM

Tax Boy: Wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey


Just had to make sure somebody said this.
 
2012-04-14 08:48:11 PM
I watch the Big Bang Theory, so I have a good understanding of this article and pertains to my interests.
 
2012-04-14 08:49:29 PM
Some sounds from the 5th Dimension are timeless.
www.e-profession.com
 
2012-04-14 08:49:33 PM

The Iron duke: Time is just the perception of decay, orbits and ourselves. We are just information carrying, data transferring symbiotic creatures. No better than bacteria, oh we have neat ways of going about our functions, but the end result is the same, only slower than bacteria.
Time is a human construct..
Motion changing time would seem to negate time. the earth spins, the solar system moves though space, even the universe is in motion. dilation of measured time, i suspect, is a function of mass on the measuring device...
/I went to far..amirite?


I don't think so, time has an independent existence. If it weren't for a time continuum, either connected to space or not, everything would happen at once, just as without space dimensions everything would have to happen in the same place.
 
2012-04-14 08:49:44 PM

ElLoco: 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.


Really? Like what?

Boatmech: 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.


Oh. I was hoping for something a bit sexier TBH. Not, like, oh here's this microscope, you know? It's just a microscope after all.
 
2012-04-14 08:52:10 PM
Time, gravity, black holes, dark matter, dark energy. We still don't understand. All we
are good at is measuring things.
 
2012-04-14 08:53:25 PM
img16.imageshack.us
 
2012-04-14 08:56:22 PM
I submitted this with a better headline tomorrow.
 
2012-04-14 08:59:41 PM

DavidVincent: I submitted this with a better headline tomorrow.



www.smbc-comics.com
 
2012-04-14 09:01:39 PM

casual disregard: ElLoco: 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.

Really? Like what?


Well... that was supposed to be a joke, but I failed the funny part of the requirement. Mensa-esque humor. Like the pie stuff.
 
2012-04-14 09:03:32 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.


Uhh... no.

If you agree that something like "motion" does exist (which it must, since we can measure it as you say), then you already agree that time as we understand it exists, because it requires an object to change its position. You're right, molecular decay isn't time by itself -- but it requires time to happen. The very idea of change is complete nonsense without the concept of time to separate one state from another -- or even to have such a thing as causality.
 
2012-04-14 09:05:51 PM
"...which the clocks measure, not which the clocks are apart of."

/ending sentence with a preposition invalidates your claim
 
2012-04-14 09:10:01 PM
Um, 107 years Einstein.
 
2012-04-14 09:11:05 PM

Deep Contact: Time, gravity, black holes, dark matter, dark energy. We still don't understand. All we
are good at is measuring things.


Measuring things can get you far. And you're wrong; we're good at both measuring things and then understanding the underlying concept or the conclusion that the measurements lead to ...or at least one in a million of us is good enough at it to have advanced human understanding this far since the early days of civilization.
 
2012-04-14 09:12:01 PM

Heron: but it's still an abstraction that can't be accurately visualized or described because it doesn't exist outside the human think-pan


Which is so much bullshiat. It takes four unique coordinates to describe an event in our universe. Relativity tells us that what values those four coordinates are going to take is always going to be relative to the reference frame doing the measuring, and two different reference frames might get wildly different values.
 
2012-04-14 09:12:41 PM
Bold? New? Many people have long understood time as a dimension separate from space.
 
2012-04-14 09:13:13 PM
These scientists' ignorance of Harmonic Cube is demonic.

www.timecube.com
 
2012-04-14 09:16:03 PM

Sock Ruh Tease: These scientists' ignorance of Harmonic Cube is demonic.

[www.timecube.com image 528x359]


I love the way he signed his name there. Gene Ray, Cubic.

Is he still alive?
 
2012-04-14 09:17:06 PM

RedVentrue: This would disprove that gravity effects time, not that acceleration effects time.
The acceleration effect has been proven true.


Um... gravity applies a force, which means gravity causes acceleration. We can see this in GPS satellites, which have clocks that drift vs. the ground due to relativity.
 
2012-04-14 09:18:41 PM
so this works without clocks...so get rid of the clocks.
 
2012-04-14 09:18:58 PM
OK, find some place that space does not exist, and this should make perfect sense there.
 
2012-04-14 09:19:08 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.


You probably think centrifugal force doesn't exist either.

/cue xkcd.
 
2012-04-14 09:21:11 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.


"Counting" and "behavior" and "motion" and "decay" are all concepts for which "time" is a prerequisite. Perhaps time doesn't really exist in some sense, but then neither would any of the other things that you are talking about.
 
2012-04-14 09:27:04 PM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: "Counting" and "behavior" and "motion" and "decay" are all concepts for which "time" is a prerequisite.


But none of those are even required to describe time. We simply need the idea of events. Events are uniquely identifiable things- it doesn't really matter what that thing is, as long as it's uniquely identifiable. The next question is how many pieces of information are required to uniquely identify an event in our universe.

The answer is four. Three values to pin the spatial coordinates, and a fourth to pin the temporal one.

Let's say, for example, that I hold a flashing light out in front of me. Relative to my eyes, I can specify the spatial coordinates of each flash by using azimuth, elevation and distance (or X,Y,Z coordinates, or any other method of describing spatial coordinates- it's always going to take three). If each flash is a unique event, then I need a fourth coordinate to describe the relationship between each of those flashes.

What relativity tells us is that if I'm holding this light out in front of me, and somebody else is approaching me in an accelerating reference frame, when they assign those flashes coordinates, they're going to get different values, even if they're using my eyes as the origin for their coordinate system, just like I am.
 
2012-04-14 09:27:09 PM

vodka: 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.


Global warming.
 
2012-04-14 09:29:55 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.


Whoa, Texas boy, why are you wasting your time slumming on Fark? You should be on the next plane to Stockholm -- they desperately need your genius. Your Nobel awaits!
 
2012-04-14 09:42:50 PM
So, does this mean we can travel through time or not?
 
2012-04-14 09:48:30 PM

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


Without duration, there is nothing for space to exist during.
 
2012-04-14 09:53:30 PM

GreatGlavinsGhost: So, does this mean we can travel through time or not?


We're doing it right now!
 
2012-04-14 09:55:56 PM

GreatGlavinsGhost: So, does this mean we can travel through time or not?


That reminds me, even after I read the explanation to Primer I was still sitting there slack-jawed not knowing what just happened.
 
2012-04-14 10:12:01 PM
I always thought time was the 0th dimension.
 
2012-04-14 10:16:02 PM

t3knomanser: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: "Counting" and "behavior" and "motion" and "decay" are all concepts for which "time" is a prerequisite.

But none of those are even required to describe time. We simply need the idea of events. Events are uniquely identifiable things- it doesn't really matter what that thing is, as long as it's uniquely identifiable. The next question is how many pieces of information are required to uniquely identify an event in our universe.

The answer is four. Three values to pin the spatial coordinates, and a fourth to pin the temporal one.

Let's say, for example, that I hold a flashing light out in front of me. Relative to my eyes, I can specify the spatial coordinates of each flash by using azimuth, elevation and distance (or X,Y,Z coordinates, or any other method of describing spatial coordinates- it's always going to take three). If each flash is a unique event, then I need a fourth coordinate to describe the relationship between each of those flashes.

What relativity tells us is that if I'm holding this light out in front of me, and somebody else is approaching me in an accelerating reference frame, when they assign those flashes coordinates, they're going to get different values, even if they're using my eyes as the origin for their coordinate system, just like I am.


My comment was in response to someone claiming that time doesn't really exist (whatever that may mean) and then talking about things like motion or decay or counting as though they *do* really exist. That is nonsensical. Any sufficiently thorough description of the meaning of those words will require the concept of time. (I think maybe you took me to be saying the inverse of that, or something.)
 
2012-04-14 10:17:24 PM
FTA "Each clock's ticking mechanism consists of a photon being reflected back and forth between two mirrors, so that a photon's path from one mirror to the other represents one tick of the clock."

Raises hand. Excuse me. If the mirrors are parallel with a photon bouncing back and forth endlessly, wouldn't the photon go off course as soon as you moved the platform? Conservation of inertia and all that. Or does a moving object perpendicular to the photon's path impart it's inertia on the photon and keep it aligned?
 
2012-04-14 10:18:14 PM
i172.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-14 10:20:47 PM
Why is this news? Time is a non-spatial reference frame, not a dimension. Spatial freferences ar 90° from each other. This is a simple semantics ploy.
 
2012-04-14 10:21:21 PM

Gawdzila: Deep Contact: Time, gravity, black holes, dark matter, dark energy. We still don't understand. All we
are good at is measuring things.

Measuring things can get you far. .


Depends how far you want to measure.
 
2012-04-14 10:21:22 PM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: My comment was in response to someone claiming that time doesn't really exist


I know- I was agreeing with you and expanding on the subject.
 
2012-04-14 10:21:51 PM
And freferences is a spelling erra.
 
2012-04-14 10:23:07 PM
ElLoco
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.
`
Granted I simplified the hell out of my comment but I'm pretty sure "space = a volume or area and everything in it" is kinda sorta, maybe related to "vacuum = a volume or area lacking any matter".
 
2012-04-14 10:27:41 PM

Boatmech: a volume or area lacking any matter".


So, time does not require matter, and matter does not require time. But, change in either requires both.
 
2012-04-14 10:28:43 PM

Boatmech: "space = a volume or area and everything in it" is kinda sorta, maybe related to "vacuum = a volume or area lacking any matter".


That's not really a good definition of space. Spaces are sets of possible states for that space. In a cartesian plane, for example, the space would be all points from (-inf, -inf) to (inf, inf). That's space. Volume or area need not apply.
 
2012-04-14 10:28:54 PM

RedVentrue: This would disprove that gravity effects time, not that acceleration effects time.
The acceleration effect has been proven true.
Einstein gets 1/2.


Nope, Einstein gets 1, still. The gravitation effect has also been proven true. Easiest example I can bring up on cue is the adjustment of clocks in orbit: they do not run slower than earthbound clocks... relativity effects from their speed in relation to an earth-bound clock's timekeeping are negligible. Their relative positions within the earth's gravity well however are not so easily ignored, and cause clocks in orbit to run at a faster rate than their terrestrial counterparts.
 
2012-04-14 10:29:02 PM

t3knomanser: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: My comment was in response to someone claiming that time doesn't really exist

I know- I was agreeing with you and expanding on the subject.


Ah. Got it.
 
2012-04-14 10:33:39 PM

LovingTeacher: kook


loving teacher go read some of the other papers these authors have written.

One of them talks about how he has measured the weight of the soul. By weighing animals as they died. It seems to be a mystery to him (perhaps conspiracy is a better word) that nobody can replicate his measurements.

Kook.
 
2012-04-14 10:33:41 PM

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: 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! !


oh thank GOD I'm not the only one
 
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