Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

# Time: is it &quot;for realz&quot;? A jolly good discussion lies within.

## Posts

• Registered User regular
edited July 2007
MikeMan wrote: »
Linden wrote: »
Yar wrote: »
I don't see how time "doesn't exist" anymore than space doesn't exist. But perhaps the notion of the present existing, while the past existing no more and the future existing not yet, is the illusion. It all exists equally as the 4th dimension, just like length width and height. And it keeps on slipping slipping sliping. Into the future.
The issue with that is what force gives rise to the apparent "arrow of time" as apparently defined by entropy - that's the conumdrum. In a simulated system we can easily treat time as another space-like dimension - but what makes time unique is the fact that matter apparently moves through it without impetus.

Out of curiosity, would it be correct to state that, if one treats time as a space-like dimension, the velocity of any body is always c? I have no idea what keywords might get me this information, and haven't studied relativity, so I'll ask it here. And you reminded me.

That's basically exactly right.

As far as I understand it, when you accelerate through space you divert some of your energy FROM moving through "time" at light speed TO moving through space at whatever fraction.

This is why, when you increase your speed, you move through time slower.

Would that also mean that objects that move at light speed, like photons, don't actually move through time, and we only see a difference because timing the speed of a beam of light requires an acceleration and deceleration in space to compare the two measurements?

jothki on
• Registered User regular
edited July 2007
jothki wrote: »
MikeMan wrote: »
Linden wrote: »
Yar wrote: »
I don't see how time "doesn't exist" anymore than space doesn't exist. But perhaps the notion of the present existing, while the past existing no more and the future existing not yet, is the illusion. It all exists equally as the 4th dimension, just like length width and height. And it keeps on slipping slipping sliping. Into the future.
The issue with that is what force gives rise to the apparent "arrow of time" as apparently defined by entropy - that's the conumdrum. In a simulated system we can easily treat time as another space-like dimension - but what makes time unique is the fact that matter apparently moves through it without impetus.

Out of curiosity, would it be correct to state that, if one treats time as a space-like dimension, the velocity of any body is always c? I have no idea what keywords might get me this information, and haven't studied relativity, so I'll ask it here. And you reminded me.

That's basically exactly right.

As far as I understand it, when you accelerate through space you divert some of your energy FROM moving through "time" at light speed TO moving through space at whatever fraction.

This is why, when you increase your speed, you move through time slower.

Would that also mean that objects that move at light speed, like photons, don't actually move through time, and we only see a difference because timing the speed of a beam of light requires an acceleration and deceleration in space to compare the two measurements?

We're rapidly leaving my area of popular knowledge of the subject, but I think some clarification is in order. Photons are not "objects" as we normally think of them. They have no mass, which is the only way they are able to travel at the speed of light. They consist merely of momentum and energy. They have both wave-like and particle-like properties.

That said, in a way, that is correct. Moving at light speed necessarily precludes moving through time in any meaningful way. However, while the photons themselves do not "experience" time, they can be said to move at light speed through time from our perspective, as I understand it.

MikeMan on
HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
• Registered User
edited July 2007
Linden wrote: »
Yar wrote: »
I don't see how time "doesn't exist" anymore than space doesn't exist. But perhaps the notion of the present existing, while the past existing no more and the future existing not yet, is the illusion. It all exists equally as the 4th dimension, just like length width and height. And it keeps on slipping slipping sliping. Into the future.
The issue with that is what force gives rise to the apparent "arrow of time" as apparently defined by entropy - that's the conumdrum. In a simulated system we can easily treat time as another space-like dimension - but what makes time unique is the fact that matter apparently moves through it without impetus.

Out of curiosity, would it be correct to state that, if one treats time as a space-like dimension, the velocity of any body is always c? I have no idea what keywords might get me this information, and haven't studied relativity, so I'll ask it here. And you reminded me.

Hm. Hmmm. I feel the urge to play with Lorentz equations but you raise a really interesting idea (at least to me) - connect velocity in all 4 dimensions to the absolute limit and fun stuff could happen I suppose. I really need to do some more reading on relativity.

You want to look into four-vectors. The length is invariant when you change co-ordinates and they're given in the form [x, y, z, ct]. I don't remember the math and it's too late to bother looking at it know, but I wouldn't be surprised if you find something interesting there. The space-time invariance relates to c being constant and the energy-momentum invariance connects to rest mass being constant.

Gorak on
• Please demonstrate your enthusiasm for e-marking and/or e-assessment with examplesRegistered User regular
edited July 2007
I don't know how it really makes sense to say that time doesn't exist.

It seems more accurate to say that "in theoretical models, time can be incorporated as another dimension or variable."

MrMister on
• Registered User regular
edited July 2007
MrMister wrote: »
I don't know how it really makes sense to say that time doesn't exist.

It seems more accurate to say that "in theoretical models, time can be incorporated as another dimension or variable."

Basically what I was saying, but of course you have that conumdrum as to why it doesn't behave like a spatial dimension from our perspective (to the extent that people talk about "time-like" dimensions).

electricitylikesme on
• Registered User regular
edited July 2007
MikeMan wrote: »
Ketherial wrote: »
MikeMan wrote: »
It means the future already happened, when you get down to it. If this hypothetical Blargle could, just by walking away from us, condense our past and future into one moment, the concept of "future" as being something fundamentally different from the past has no meaning.

tl;dr: Time. Is. Fucked. Up.

this is wrong. blargle doesnt actually condense anything. blargle perspective provides him with a condensed viewing of our actions. the actions themselves are not condensed.

The actions themselves are condensed from his perspective. His perspective is just as valid and "true." A + B =...

so you just repeat exactly what i said and that makes it a response how? his perspective makes the actions seem condensed.

his perception of the events may be "valid" just as a color blind person's view of a color is "valid" when he sees red to be more like black than like white.

but that doesnt matter because when you break down events into more and more granular elements (i.e. by actually being closer to the event), there is difference between something that occurred 100 years ago and something that occurs now.
the future is fundamentally different from the past. one might not view them differently from billions of light years away, but that's pretty much a meaningless example anyway.

If you had read my post, you could see that the same effects could be experienced by being right next to an incredibly fast object. The example is not meaningless because it shows just how wrong you are.

uh, how fast are we talking? how can i be next to something moving incredibly fast? am i moving incredibly fast too and if so, doesn't that make your whole example meaningless?
i dont see why you aren't conceptually separating the perception of events from their actual occurence.

The perception of the events is indicative of the different "nows" that have meaning. You may, just may, want to actually read up on relativity before spouting nonsense. The whole goddamn point is that every observer, and every vantage point is just as "right" and just as "true" as any other. Being closer to the events in question does not lend your perspective more legitimacy, though I can see how you would be tempted to think so. But in thinking so, you betray a complete lack of understanding of relativity, which is the precise thing I am discussing.

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

i've read enough about relativity to understand that you are playing with words and not concepts. i dont give a damn about the "legitimacy" of perspective. i care about physical and granular reality.

to pretend like someone lived and died at the same time because that's how blargle perceives it from 16 billion light years away while moving in a specific direction is stupid and misleading. cells decompose and rot. 100 years from now my cells will not be moving. they are moving now. so how does blargle perceive my blood cells now and 100 years from now? moving and not moving simultaneously?

i am sincerely interested in your metaphysical answer to such a question.

Ketherial on
• Registered User regular
edited July 2007
Ketherial wrote: »
i've read enough about relativity to understand that you are playing with words and not concepts. i dont give a damn about the "legitimacy" of perspective. i care about physical and granular reality.

to pretend like someone lived and died at the same time because that's how blargle perceives it from 16 billion light years away while moving in a specific direction is stupid and misleading. cells decompose and rot. 100 years from now my cells will not be moving. they are moving now. so how does blargle perceive my blood cells now and 100 years from now? moving and not moving simultaneously?

i am sincerely interested in your metaphysical answer to such a question.
"Who's perception of your 100 years is valid" was the point being made. Blargle perceives 100 of your years nearly simultaneously. You lived and died in what was very nearly a blink of an eye as far as Blargle is concerned, all because he was walking 10mph when he got the messages about it.

The point is your time is not absolute - it can be condensed into nothingess from someone elses perspective.

electricitylikesme on
• Registered User
edited July 2007
"Who's perception of your 100 years is valid" was the point being made. Blargle perceives 100 of your years nearly simultaneously. You lived and died in what was very nearly a blink of an eye as far as Blargle is concerned, all because he was walking 10mph when he got the messages about it.

The point is your time is not absolute - it can be condensed into nothingess from someone elses perspective.

How does this comment on time itself, though, and not simply the result of perceiving with a medium that can only communicate with less than infinite speed (light, in this case)? Wouldn't time be absolute, and thus not relative, given a hypothetical infinite-velocity tool of perception? (I'm just curious.)

Chaos Theory on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
• Registered User regular
edited July 2007
Yes - which was the point of relativity theory. If time is absolute, then you can go as fast as you want without causing problems. However, we can experimentally show that that is not the case.

electricitylikesme on
• Registered User
edited July 2007
Yes - which was the point of relativity theory. If time is absolute, then you can go as fast as you want without causing problems. However, we can experimentally show that that is not the case.

So time itself, and not just our perception of it, is directly tied to light? Interesting.

Chaos Theory on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
• Registered User
edited July 2007
Incenjucar wrote: »
The fact that you leave out a vast amount of information about the tree does not lead me to believe you have fully described it.

You have simply made the fair assumption that a whole lot of information is understood as a given and as context.

For instance, if you described a tree, it would be safe to assume you were talking about a tree on Earth in a fairly normal situation, rather than, say, a tree on a space shuttle.

A tree on a space shuttle could NOT be described the same was a tree on Earth if it's been growing there for a long enough duration.

I can describe both of those situations by studying what gravity does to the tree.

It still doesn't matter whether gravity is curved space, a background field of gravitons or angels flapping their wings. All the tree cares about is that gravity pulls it this much or that much to whatever direction.

DeepQantas on
m~
• Registered User regular
edited July 2007
Yes - which was the point of relativity theory. If time is absolute, then you can go as fast as you want without causing problems. However, we can experimentally show that that is not the case.

So time itself, and not just our perception of it, is directly tied to light? Interesting.

Not quite - time is apparently tied to velocity, and the absolute fastest velocity you can move in any inertial frame of reference is equal to a value equivalent to the speed of light. The speed of light comes up so much because as far as we can tell photons move at it by virtue of being massless, but there is at least one school of thought which proposes hypothetical particles moving faster then light which can in fact simply never go slower then 'c'.

electricitylikesme on
• Registered User
edited July 2007
Yes - which was the point of relativity theory. If time is absolute, then you can go as fast as you want without causing problems. However, we can experimentally show that that is not the case.

So time itself, and not just our perception of it, is directly tied to light? Interesting.

Not quite - time is apparently tied to velocity, and the absolute fastest velocity you can move in any inertial frame of reference is equal to a value equivalent to the speed of light. The speed of light comes up so much because as far as we can tell photons move at it by virtue of being massless, but there is at least one school of thought which proposes hypothetical particles moving faster then light which can in fact simply never go slower then 'c'.

Ah, I see. Confusion cleared up.

Chaos Theory on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
• Registered User
edited July 2007
Yes - which was the point of relativity theory. If time is absolute, then you can go as fast as you want without causing problems. However, we can experimentally show that that is not the case.

So time itself, and not just our perception of it, is directly tied to light? Interesting.

Not quite - time is apparently tied to velocity, and the absolute fastest velocity you can move in any inertial frame of reference is equal to a value equivalent to the speed of light. The speed of light comes up so much because as far as we can tell photons move at it by virtue of being massless, but there is at least one school of thought which proposes hypothetical particles moving faster then light which can in fact simply never go slower then 'c'.

Tachyons just make everything real messy though. Life would be easier if they didn't exist, but if they're allowed for by the math then you can't rule them out.

Gorak on
• Registered User regular
edited July 2007
Ketherial wrote: »
so you just repeat exactly what i said and that makes it a response how? his perspective makes the actions seem condensed.

his perception of the events may be "valid" just as a color blind person's view of a color is "valid" when he sees red to be more like black than like white.

but that doesnt matter because when you break down events into more and more granular elements (i.e. by actually being closer to the event), there is difference between something that occurred 100 years ago and something that occurs now.

From our perspective there is a difference. From another there is not. All perspectives are equally true.
uh, how fast are we talking? how can i be next to something moving incredibly fast? am i moving incredibly fast too and if so, doesn't that make your whole example meaningless?

You are not moving incredibly fast in my hypothetical. Why would you even bring that up? The whole goddamned point is motion relative to you. There is no absolute frame of reference anyway.
i've read enough about relativity to understand that you are playing with words and not concepts. i dont give a damn about the "legitimacy" of perspective. i care about physical and granular reality.

You have not read enough on relativity if you don't give a damn about the legitimacy of perspective.
to pretend like someone lived and died at the same time because that's how blargle perceives it from 16 billion light years away while moving in a specific direction is stupid and misleading. cells decompose and rot. 100 years from now my cells will not be moving. they are moving now. so how does blargle perceive my blood cells now and 100 years from now? moving and not moving simultaneously?

i am sincerely interested in your metaphysical answer to such a question.

All reference frames are equally valid and true. Please let that sink in.

edited for quote tree trimming

MikeMan on
HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
Ketherial wrote: »
i've read enough about relativity to understand that you are playing with words and not concepts. i dont give a damn about the "legitimacy" of perspective. i care about physical and granular reality.

to pretend like someone lived and died at the same time because that's how blargle perceives it from 16 billion light years away while moving in a specific direction is stupid and misleading. cells decompose and rot. 100 years from now my cells will not be moving. they are moving now. so how does blargle perceive my blood cells now and 100 years from now? moving and not moving simultaneously?

i am sincerely interested in your metaphysical answer to such a question.
"Who's perception of your 100 years is valid" was the point being made. Blargle perceives 100 of your years nearly simultaneously. You lived and died in what was very nearly a blink of an eye as far as Blargle is concerned, all because he was walking 10mph when he got the messages about it.

The point is your time is not absolute - it can be condensed into nothingess from someone elses perspective.

but perceiving different events to have occurred nearly simultaneously doesnt mean that the actual atoms effected by the "time" (or movement) actually occured simultaneously. in other words, the past, present and future aren't actually being condensed, blargle just has condensed perception.

from our perspective on earth, the moon and the sun are identical sizes. this is a valid and true statement. but it doesnt mean shit about the actual size of the sun or the moon. it doesnt mean that i've condensed the moon and the sun into the same size. all it means is that when i view them from earth i see them as the same size just as when someone views them from mercury, he sees the sun as larger than our moon. his statement that from his perspective the sun is larger than the moon is equally valid to my statement that from my perspective the sun and the moon are identical sizes. size is after all, relative.

both perspectives are valid but to pretend like this is a big deal is fucking stupid. what we care about is the absolute atomic reality of the situation. 100 years from now and now on an atomic scale are different.

in other words, mikeman's post is misleading to the point of being flat out wrong.

edited for clarity.

Ketherial on
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
first, please see above post in response to elec.
MikeMan wrote: »
Ketherial wrote: »
so you just repeat exactly what i said and that makes it a response how? his perspective makes the actions seem condensed.

his perception of the events may be "valid" just as a color blind person's view of a color is "valid" when he sees red to be more like black than like white.

but that doesnt matter because when you break down events into more and more granular elements (i.e. by actually being closer to the event), there is difference between something that occurred 100 years ago and something that occurs now.

From our perspective there is a difference. From another there is not. All perspectives are equally true.

when you say all perspectives are equally true, do you mean to say that they are all equally true on an atomic level? because that's all i care about.
uh, how fast are we talking? how can i be next to something moving incredibly fast? am i moving incredibly fast too and if so, doesn't that make your whole example meaningless?

You are not moving incredibly fast in my hypothetical. Why would you even bring that up? The whole goddamned point is motion relative to you. There is no absolute frame of reference anyway.

so then how can i be "next" to something moving incredibly fast? it's an impossible and stupid situation. either something is next to me and traveling at the same speed i am, or something is moving much faster than me and only actually "next" to me for a tiny moment in time. and for the moment that it is "next" to me, the position of the coin when viewed by both stationary observer and moving observer is identical.
i've read enough about relativity to understand that you are playing with words and not concepts. i dont give a damn about the "legitimacy" of perspective. i care about physical and granular reality.

You have not read enough on relativity if you don't give a damn about the legitimacy of perspective.

uh okay. what you're saying is still stupid though. the sun and the moon are the same size! yay!
to pretend like someone lived and died at the same time because that's how blargle perceives it from 16 billion light years away while moving in a specific direction is stupid and misleading. cells decompose and rot. 100 years from now my cells will not be moving. they are moving now. so how does blargle perceive my blood cells now and 100 years from now? moving and not moving simultaneously?

i am sincerely interested in your metaphysical answer to such a question.

All reference frames are equally valid and true. Please let that sink in.

edited for quote tree trimming

in other words, you don't want to talk about atomic reality, you just want to talk about perception of reality. that's fine. it's like a conversation about size:

you keep saying the sun and moon are equal size when viewed from earth.
i keep saying i dont give a damn about their "size" when viewed from a certain perspective, i care about actual atomic reality (mass).
then you keep saying but they're the same size when viewed from earth. let that sink in.

uh, ok.

Ketherial on
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
No, now you're ignoring relativity - which, incidentally, does let you do a similar trick.

100 years your time has passed for Blargle in an eye blink. If you were looking at Blargle from your perspective, he wouldn't be moving at all though - it would take a 100 years for the blink to happen.

I don't get why you're arguing about this, the experiment has actually been done - for \$2000 in airline tickets it's been shown that time moved more slowly for atomic clocks on round-the-world flights compared to atomic clocks left on the ground.

EDIT:
[QUOTE=Around-the-World Atomic Clocks:
Observed Relativistic Time Gains]Four cesium beam clocks flown around the world on commerical
jet flights during October 1971, once eastward and one westward, recorded
directionally dependent time divergences which are in good agreement with predictions
of conventional relativity theory. Relative to the atomic time scale of the
U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59 (+-) 10 nanoseconds during the
eastward trip and gained 273 (+-) 7 nanoseconds during the westward trip, where the
errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous
empirical realization of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks.[/QUOTE]

electricitylikesme on
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
No, now you're ignoring relativity - which, incidentally, does let you do a similar trick.

100 years your time has passed for Blargle in an eye blink. If you were looking at Blargle from your perspective, he wouldn't be moving at all though - it would take a 100 years for the blink to happen.

I don't get why you're arguing about this, the experiment has actually been done - for \$2000 in airline tickets it's been shown that time moved more slowly for atomic clocks on round-the-world flights compared to atomic clocks left on the ground.

no, no, no, tricks with relativity have been experimented between moving objects and non moving objects.

but mikeman was saying that our past, our present and our future are actually condensed by blargle's perspective as long as blargle is moving away.

that is a flat out wrong statement.

edit: yes, i know of the experiment. it has nothing to do with mikeman's incorrect statement. i've re-quoted it below for your convenience:
It means the future already happened, when you get down to it. If this hypothetical Blargle could, just by walking away from us, condense our past and future into one moment, the concept of "future" as being something fundamentally different from the past has no meaning.

Ketherial on
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
Ketherial wrote: »
No, now you're ignoring relativity - which, incidentally, does let you do a similar trick.

100 years your time has passed for Blargle in an eye blink. If you were looking at Blargle from your perspective, he wouldn't be moving at all though - it would take a 100 years for the blink to happen.

I don't get why you're arguing about this, the experiment has actually been done - for \$2000 in airline tickets it's been shown that time moved more slowly for atomic clocks on round-the-world flights compared to atomic clocks left on the ground.

no, no, no, tricks with relativity have been experimented between moving objects and non moving objects.

but mikeman was saying that our past, our present and our future are actually condensed by blargle's perspective as long as blargle is moving away.

that is a flat out wrong statement.

edit: yes, i know of the experiment. it has nothing to do with mikeman's incorrect statement.
Ok, so would you then like to tell me who's measurement of time in the above experiment is the correct one?

electricitylikesme on
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
Ketherial wrote: »
No, now you're ignoring relativity - which, incidentally, does let you do a similar trick.

100 years your time has passed for Blargle in an eye blink. If you were looking at Blargle from your perspective, he wouldn't be moving at all though - it would take a 100 years for the blink to happen.

I don't get why you're arguing about this, the experiment has actually been done - for \$2000 in airline tickets it's been shown that time moved more slowly for atomic clocks on round-the-world flights compared to atomic clocks left on the ground.

no, no, no, tricks with relativity have been experimented between moving objects and non moving objects.

but mikeman was saying that our past, our present and our future are actually condensed by blargle's perspective as long as blargle is moving away.

that is a flat out wrong statement.

edit: yes, i know of the experiment. it has nothing to do with mikeman's incorrect statement.
Ok, so would you then like to tell me who's measurement of time in the above experiment is the correct one?

what are you talking about? the whole point is that they are both correct in that they are different. clock a has experienced x seconds and clock b has experienced y seconds.

mikeman's statement was that our past, present and future are actually condensed into a second (e.g. there is no difference between past and future) because blargle perceives it to be so.

which is fucking wrong.

in the above example, that's like saying clock a's time is actually y because clock b perceived it to be y. wrong. clock a's (our perception) time is x (100 years) and clock b's (blargle's perception) time is y (1 sec). our future and past are still 100 years apart. they arent actually condensed into 1 sec just because blargle perceives it as such.

the experiment supports my point, not mikeman's.

edit: just to bring it one step further, the atomic reality of the situation for us is that we've experienced 100 years. blargle experiencing only 1 sec doesnt mean that the actual reality of the situation is that blargle "actually condensed our reality into 1 sec" because we still experience 100 years.

Ketherial on
• Registered User
edited August 2007
Ketherial wrote: »
edit: just to bring it one step further, the atomic reality of the situation for us is that we've experienced 100 years. blargle experiencing only 1 sec doesnt mean that the actual reality of the situation is that blargle "actually condensed our reality into 1 sec" because we still experience 100 years.

What exactly is this "atomic" reality you keep mentioning?

Both measurements of time are equally valid. If blargle measures the seperation of two points as being 1 sec due to his decision to go for a jog, then it's quite acceptable to say that his motion compressed those two points to being a second apart.

I think the problem seems to be that you think there is an "actual" reality out there somewhere - there isn't.

Gorak on
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
Ketherial wrote: »
No, now you're ignoring relativity - which, incidentally, does let you do a similar trick.

100 years your time has passed for Blargle in an eye blink. If you were looking at Blargle from your perspective, he wouldn't be moving at all though - it would take a 100 years for the blink to happen.

I don't get why you're arguing about this, the experiment has actually been done - for \$2000 in airline tickets it's been shown that time moved more slowly for atomic clocks on round-the-world flights compared to atomic clocks left on the ground.

no, no, no, tricks with relativity have been experimented between moving objects and non moving objects.

but mikeman was saying that our past, our present and our future are actually condensed by blargle's perspective as long as blargle is moving away.

that is a flat out wrong statement.

They are actually condensed, because both perspectives are equally valid. Do you not comprehend English? I've said it about 5 times now.
edit: yes, i know of the experiment. it has nothing to do with mikeman's incorrect statement.
Ok, so would you then like to tell me who's measurement of time in the above experiment is the correct one?

what are you talking about? the whole point is that they are both correct in that they are different. clock a has experienced x seconds and clock b has experienced y seconds.

mikeman's statement was that our past, present and future are actually condensed into a second (e.g. there is no difference between past and future) because blargle perceives it to be so.

which is fucking wrong.

From our perspective, 300 years takes 300 years. From Blargle's perspective, which is an equally true perspective on reality, in other words what actually occurred, 300 years passes in the blink of an eye, and our future occurs simultaneously with our past.

Please, please, please, read up on relativity before you start getting into arguments like this. This stuff has been fucking proven by experiments, repeatedly.
in the above example, that's like saying clock a's time is actually y because clock b perceived it to be y. wrong. clock a's (our perception) time is x (100 years) and clock b's (blargle's perception) time is y (1 sec). our future and past are still 100 years apart. they arent actually condensed into 1 sec just because blargle perceives it as such.

No, no, no, no, fucking no. Clock A's time IS ACTUALLY 100 years from clock A's vantage point because clock A perceives it to be so. Likewise, clock A's time is ACTUALLY one second from clock B's vantage point because clock B perceives it to be 1 second. All perspectives are true.
he experiment supports my point, not mikeman's.

Only if you have a thin grasp of the concepts involved.

Alright, listen up. I can tell you really have this idea in your head that there is an absolute space or an absolute time.

There isn't.

My example involving Blargle illustrates that it is equally true to see things from Blargle's perspective. It's the same thing, albeit with space compensating for speed, as the train thought experiment. What does the train thought experiment say?

Even order of events and simultaneity depends on the observer's location and relative acceleration.

This stuff has been proven to occur. Space and time are relative.

I can also tell you haven't fucking read my post, because I said, quite clearly, that being in close proximity to an event does not make your perspective any more valid. You keep going on about this atomic level stuff, probably because you have no idea what relativity means.
edit: just to bring it one step further, the atomic reality of the situation for us is that we've experienced 100 years.

"Atomic reality" makes no sense in this example. We have experienced 100 years, that is indisputable.
blargle experiencing only 1 sec doesnt mean that the actual reality of the situation is that blargle "actually condensed our reality into 1 sec" because we still experience 100 years.

And there you go making shit up again. Completely, utterly false. A high school level treatment of relativity would instantly disavow you of this notion. For the 800th time, our having experienced 100 years does not, in any way, mean other vantage points' experiences of the same time period are not equally fucking true. They are. That is just how the universe works.

So, yeah, we've experienced the full amount of time. But that time can be tweaked and distorted depending on where you are. It's not just the perception. It's the actual simultaneity and duration of the events themselves. All are affected. So Blargle's perspective is not just some wank-off thought experiment. Blargle's perspective, BECAUSE IT IS EQUALLY TRUE, shows that time is as fluid as space. It shows that our perception of events and simultaneity is flawed, because we regard them as absolutes. It also shows that events that we would consider in our future, in some sense already occurred, because a simple change of perspective can condense them into the present, in an actual, real sense.

Please open up a book and read before you start blabbing on about things you have not grasped.

MikeMan on
HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
• Registered User
edited August 2007
MikeMan wrote: »
in the above example, that's like saying clock a's time is actually y because clock b perceived it to be y. wrong. clock a's (our perception) time is x (100 years) and clock b's (blargle's perception) time is y (1 sec). our future and past are still 100 years apart. they arent actually condensed into 1 sec just because blargle perceives it as such.

No, no, no, no, fucking no. Clock A's time IS ACTUALLY 100 years from clock A's vantage point because clock A perceives it to be so. Likewise, clock A's time is ACTUALLY one second from clock B's vantage point because clock A perceives it to be 1 second. All perspectives are true.

Dude, calm down, you'll give yourself an anneurysm. Some people just can't accept the duality.

Gorak on
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
Gorak wrote: »
Dude, calm down, you'll give yourself an anneurysm. Some people just can't accept the duality.

Calm blue ocean. Serenity now!

MikeMan on
HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
Gorak wrote: »
Ketherial wrote: »
edit: just to bring it one step further, the atomic reality of the situation for us is that we've experienced 100 years. blargle experiencing only 1 sec doesnt mean that the actual reality of the situation is that blargle "actually condensed our reality into 1 sec" because we still experience 100 years.

What exactly is this "atomic" reality you keep mentioning?

Both measurements of time are equally valid. If blargle measures the seperation of two points as being 1 sec due to his decision to go for a jog, then it's quite acceptable to say that his motion compressed those two points to being a second apart.

I think the problem seems to be that you think there is an "actual" reality out there somewhere - there isn't.

the atomic reality i keep mentioning is how any atom (or more useful to our conversation, any living cell) is affected by the passage of "time" (e.g. left to my own devices my heart stops beating after the passage of approximately 80 years or so).

i've already stated that "both measurements of time are valid" is a stupid, meaningless statement because it's no different from saying the sun and the moon are the same size when viewed from earth. what matters is how the actual subject experiences time not how a third party perceives it.

going back to the two clocks: instead of clocks, let's make them children and instead of planes, let's make them near light speed spaceships.

child x and y at point 0 are each 10 years old. child x is on earth. child y is on the spaceship. child y flies off for 10 years then returns to find child x 90 years old. but child y is only 20 years old. what this means is that although child y's cells (what i refer to as the "atomic reality" of the situation) have only experienced 10 years of growth, child x has experienced 80 years of growth (and is near death).

hence, the atomic reality of the situation for each child is different. it doesn't matter that child y seems to think that only 10 years have passed because for child x, 80 years have passed. in other words, it doesnt matter what blargle thinks of our experience, for us 100 years have past. the time, for us has not been condensed in any way.

mikeman, is just repeating the same useless crap without acknowledging that his original statement is misleading and wrong. relativity means that "time" affects high speed objects and low speed objects differently. it does not mean however that a high speed object's time frame can be applied to a low speed object. even if such high speed object's time frame is "valid" or whatever you want to call it, it's only valid for the high speed object.

mikeman's whole argument that because both are valid, suddenly our past, present and future are condensed is the fucking height of stupidity. again, it's like saying because the sun and the moon are identical sizes when viewed from the earth, they have identical masses, which is just plain wrong.

Ketherial on
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
MikeMan wrote: »
No, no, no, no, fucking no. Clock A's time IS ACTUALLY 100 years from clock A's vantage point because clock A perceives it to be so. Likewise, clock A's time is ACTUALLY one second from clock B's vantage point because clock A perceives it to be 1 second. All perspectives are true.

uh, no. you're wrong.

even if clock b perceives clock a's time to be 1 sec, clock a never perceives its own time to be 1 sec. each clock will only perceive its own time to be that which it has actually experienced. clock a will never perceive its own time to be both 100 years and 1 sec.

i find it absolutely hilarious that you are telling me to read up on this when you keep saying fucking wrong things.

Ketherial on
• Registered User
edited August 2007
Ketherial wrote: »
Gorak wrote: »
Ketherial wrote: »
edit: just to bring it one step further, the atomic reality of the situation for us is that we've experienced 100 years. blargle experiencing only 1 sec doesnt mean that the actual reality of the situation is that blargle "actually condensed our reality into 1 sec" because we still experience 100 years.

What exactly is this "atomic" reality you keep mentioning?

Both measurements of time are equally valid. If blargle measures the seperation of two points as being 1 sec due to his decision to go for a jog, then it's quite acceptable to say that his motion compressed those two points to being a second apart.

I think the problem seems to be that you think there is an "actual" reality out there somewhere - there isn't.

the atomic reality i keep mentioning is how any atom (or more useful to our conversation, any living cell) is affected by the passage of "time" (e.g. left to my own devices my heart stops beating after the passage of approximately 80 years or so).

Time does not "pass".
i've already stated that "both measurements of time are valid" is a stupid, meaningless statement because it's no different from saying the sun and the moon are the same size when viewed from earth. what matters is how the actual subject experiences time not how a third party perceives it.

It's not stupid and meaningless unless the general theory of relativity is also stupid and meaningless.
going back to the two clocks: instead of clocks, let's make them children and instead of planes, let's make them near light speed spaceships.

child x and y at point 0 are each 10 years old. child x is on earth. child y is on the spaceship. child y flies off for 10 years then returns to find child x 90 years old. but child y is only 20 years old. what this means is that although child y's cells (what i refer to as the "atomic reality" of the situation) have only experienced 10 years of growth, child x has experienced 80 years of growth (and is near death).

hence, the atomic reality of the situation for each child is different. it doesn't matter that child y seems to think that only 10 years have passed because for child x, 80 years have passed. in other words, it doesnt matter what blargle thinks of our experience, for us 100 years have past. the time, for us has not been condensed in any way.

This "atomic reality" thing doesn't help, think of it in terms of frames of reference. Each child has their own frame of reference and when there is no relative motion then measurements made in each frame will be equal.

When one frame of reference is accelerated fast enough we get the relativistic effects and measurements of length or time will be different. However, both reference frames are equally valid. A problem only arises when you think in terms of an absolute reference frame within which to make measurements and against which we can compare our other reference frames.
relativity means that "time" affects high speed objects and low speed objects differently. it does not mean however that a high speed object's time frame can be applied to a low speed object. even if such high speed object's time frame is "valid" or whatever you want to call it, it's only valid for the high speed object.

Relativity means that blargle will observe different lengths, masses, and times within his reference frame compared to an Earth observer measuring within his reference frame if the two reference frames are moving relative to each other.

If blargle were to make his measurement in the Earth frame of reference he would measure the same lengths, masses, times etc as us - just as if we were to measure using his reference frame, we would find that our entire lifetimes were merely a fraction of a second. However, the natural processes of life would be taking place so quickly, relative to blargle, that we would grow and mature as much as blargle would expect us to during 100 years if we were stationary relative to his reference frame.

Ketherial wrote: »
MikeMan wrote: »
Likewise, clock A's time is ACTUALLY one second from clock B's vantage point because clock A perceives it to be 1 second. All perspectives are true.

uh, no. you're wrong.

That's quite clearly a typo and the second "clock A" should read "clock B". With that alteration his statement is right.

Gorak on
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
Gorak wrote: »
Ketherial wrote: »
the atomic reality i keep mentioning is how any atom (or more useful to our conversation, any living cell) is affected by the passage of "time" (e.g. left to my own devices my heart stops beating after the passage of approximately 80 years or so).

Time does not "pass".

are you making a semantics argument?
going back to the two clocks: instead of clocks, let's make them children and instead of planes, let's make them near light speed spaceships.

child x and y at point 0 are each 10 years old. child x is on earth. child y is on the spaceship. child y flies off for 10 years then returns to find child x 90 years old. but child y is only 20 years old. what this means is that although child y's cells (what i refer to as the "atomic reality" of the situation) have only experienced 10 years of growth, child x has experienced 80 years of growth (and is near death).

hence, the atomic reality of the situation for each child is different. it doesn't matter that child y seems to think that only 10 years have passed because for child x, 80 years have passed. in other words, it doesnt matter what blargle thinks of our experience, for us 100 years have past. the time, for us has not been condensed in any way.

This "atomic reality" thing doesn't help, think of it in terms of frames of reference. Each child has their own frame of reference and when there is no relative motion then measurements made in each frame will be equal.

When one frame of reference is accelerated fast enough we get the relativistic effects and measurements of length or time will be different. However, both reference frames are equally valid. A problem only arises when you think in terms of an absolute reference frame within which to make measurements and against which we can compare our other reference frames.

i think you've effectively agreed with me, even though you want to use different words.
relativity means that "time" affects high speed objects and low speed objects differently. it does not mean however that a high speed object's time frame can be applied to a low speed object. even if such high speed object's time frame is "valid" or whatever you want to call it, it's only valid for the high speed object.

Relativity means that blargle will observe different lengths, masses, and times within his reference frame compared to an Earth observer measuring within his reference frame if the two reference frames are moving relative to each other.

If blargle were to make his measurement in the Earth frame of reference he would measure the same lengths, masses, times etc as us - just as if we were to measure using his reference frame, we would find that our entire lifetimes were merely a fraction of a second. However, the natural processes of life would be taking place so quickly, relative to blargle, that we would grow and mature as much as blargle would expect us to during 100 years if we were stationary relative to his reference frame.

i dont disagree with anything you've said here because what you are saying is the exact opposite of what mikeman was saying.

he was saying that by using blargle's frame of reference to measure events on earth, events on earth are actually happening at the same time and are effectively condensed into the same instant (e.g. "the future already happened"). which is total bullshit. blargle simply perceives events happening at a much higher speed than we do, essentially, each year of our life may be a nanosecond in his perspective. but that's just how he views things, not how the things themselves experience "time". nothing on earth is actually condensed. only his vision of events on earth are condensed.

you guys keep ignoring this poiint. the things themselves experience time as absolute. it doesnt matter what blargle seems to perceive because the event itself follows time as we casually understand it. as such, nothing is actually condensed. the future and the past are not the same.
Ketherial wrote: »
MikeMan wrote: »
Likewise, clock A's time is ACTUALLY one second from clock B's vantage point because clock A perceives it to be 1 second. All perspectives are true.

uh, no. you're wrong.

That's quite clearly a typo and the second "clock A" should read "clock B". With that alteration his statement is right.

with that correction, he is now agreeing with me and totally backpeddling on his original point.

Ketherial on
• Registered User
edited August 2007
Ketherial wrote: »
Gorak wrote: »
Time does not "pass".

are you making a semantics argument?

If you're going to discuss relativity, then it's an important distinction.
This "atomic reality" thing doesn't help, think of it in terms of frames of reference. Each child has their own frame of reference and when there is no relative motion then measurements made in each frame will be equal.

When one frame of reference is accelerated fast enough we get the relativistic effects and measurements of length or time will be different. However, both reference frames are equally valid. A problem only arises when you think in terms of an absolute reference frame within which to make measurements and against which we can compare our other reference frames.

i think you've effectively agreed with me, even though you want to use different words.

I just want to make sure what you think you're saying. I use "reference frame" because it's the terminology I learnt at university and I've heard laymen (for want of a better word ) often use the same terms to describe completely different concepts and end up arguing at cross purposes for hours until someone suddenly clicks and say "Wait, were you using it to mean _____?"
i dont disagree with anything you've said here because what you are saying is the exact opposite of what mikeman was saying.

he was saying that by using blargle's frame of reference to measure events on earth, events on earth are actually happening at the same time and are effectively condensed into the same instant (e.g. "the future already happened"). which is total bullshit. blargle simply perceives events happening at a much higher speed than we do, essentially, each year of our life may be a nanosecond in his perspective. but that's just how he views things, not how the things themselves experience "time". nothing on earth is actually condensed. only his vision of events on earth are condensed.

you guys keep ignoring this poiint. the things themselves experience time as absolute. it doesnt matter what blargle seems to perceive because the event itself follows time as we casually understand it. as such, nothing is actually condensed. the future and the past are not the same.

The problem is that both frames of reference are equally valid so MikeMan could just as easily say that the second was stretched to 100 years. The observer only percieves time as absolute when looking at objects that are within his own reference frame. However, no reference frame is absolute, so it's merely the observer's local perception. When looked at relative to another reference frame they realise that time is not absolute so no-one can say that an event took 10 seconds according to blargle but I was there and it was actually 100 years. They can only state that it was 100 years within my reference frame.

I think that's where the confusion arises because without that qualifier it appears as if you're referring to absolute time.
Ketherial wrote: »
MikeMan wrote: »
No, no, no, no, fucking no. Clock A's time IS ACTUALLY 100 years from clock A's vantage point because clock A perceives it to be so. Likewise, clock A's time is ACTUALLY one second from clock B's vantage point because clock B perceives it to be 1 second. All perspectives are true.

with that correction, he is now agreeing with me and totally backpeddling on his original point.

No, he's back to his original statement that both are true and accurate descriptions of reality, unless you referring to a statement before that.

Gorak on
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
Yes, it was a typo. Edited appropriately.

MikeMan on
HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
gorak, i dont think we actually disagree on anything.
Gorak wrote: »
Ketherial wrote: »
MikeMan wrote: »
No, no, no, no, fucking no. Clock A's time IS ACTUALLY 100 years from clock A's vantage point because clock A perceives it to be so. Likewise, clock A's time is ACTUALLY one second from clock B's vantage point because clock B perceives it to be 1 second. All perspectives are true.

with that correction, he is now agreeing with me and totally backpeddling on his original point.

No, he's back to his original statement that both are true and accurate descriptions of reality, unless you referring to a statement before that.

this is the statement i am referring to and originally responded to.
keth wrote:
MikeMan wrote:
It means the future already happened, when you get down to it. If this hypothetical Blargle could, just by walking away from us, condense our past and future into one moment, the concept of "future" as being something fundamentally different from the past has no meaning.

tl;dr: Time. Is. Fucked. Up.

this is wrong. blargle doesnt actually condense anything. blargle's perspective provides him with a condensed viewing of our actions. the actions themselves are not condensed.

the future is fundamentally different from the past. one might not view them differently when viewing them from billions of light years away, but that's pretty much a meaningless example anyway.

i dont see why you aren't conceptually separating the perception of events from their actual occurence.

everything he states above doesnt jive with relative time frames. in fact, he states that "blargle is condensing our past and future into one moment " (i.e., enforcing his "time frame" on events in our "time frame"), which is just plain fucking wrong. the whole fucking point of relativity is that one time frame doesnt apply to another and that different subjects can experience different time frames based on the speed at which they are moving.

i find it incredibly annoying when people say wrong shit and then try and tell me to "read up on it".

Ketherial on
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
Ketherial wrote: »
everything he states above doesnt jive with relative time frames. in fact, he states that "blargle is condensing our past and future into one moment " (i.e., enforcing his "time frame" on events in our "time frame"), which is just plain fucking wrong. the whole fucking point of relativity is that one time frame doesnt apply to another and that different subjects can experience different time frames based on the speed at which they are moving.
MikeMan was distinctly not saying the bolded part, well, he didn't mean it in those terms. But the purpled part is also wrong - relativity deals more or less exclusively in defining how different inertial frames of reference relate to each other and in that sense Blargle really is enforcing his time frame on ours - by virtue of walking 10 mph his time frame is incredibly slow in ours, and we disappear in the blink of an eye in his.

The two are related in a very important way.

electricitylikesme on
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
Ketherial wrote: »
everything he states above doesnt jive with relative time frames. in fact, he states that "blargle is condensing our past and future into one moment "

yes, from his perspective they are condensed.
(i.e., enforcing his "time frame" on events in our "time frame"),
no, i never said that.
which is just plain fucking wrong.
indeed it would be, had I said it.
the whole fucking point of relativity is that one time frame doesnt apply to another
not true. both apply to each other. both are true.
and that different subjects can experience different time frames based on the speed at which they are moving.
precisely.
i find it incredibly annoying when people say wrong shit and then try and tell me to "read up on it".
if you had a grasp of the material, i would not tell you to read more. as it is, i believe you need to read more. "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene would be a good starting point.

MikeMan on
HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
Ketherial wrote: »
everything he states above doesnt jive with relative time frames. in fact, he states that "blargle is condensing our past and future into one moment " (i.e., enforcing his "time frame" on events in our "time frame"), which is just plain fucking wrong. the whole fucking point of relativity is that one time frame doesnt apply to another and that different subjects can experience different time frames based on the speed at which they are moving.
MikeMan was distinctly not saying the bolded part, well, he didn't mean it in those terms.

unless he simply has no command of the english language at all, i dont see how you can interpret "the future already happened" and "by walking away from us, blargle condenses our future and past into a moment" as anything other than him saying that blargle is enforcing his time frame upon ours.
But the purpled part is also wrong - relativity deals more or less exclusively in defining how different inertial frames of reference relate to each other and in that sense Blargle really is enforcing his time frame on ours - by virtue of walking 10 mph his time frame is incredibly slow in ours, and we disappear in the blink of an eye in his.

The two are related in a very important way.

well, yes and no. relativity states that different inertial frames pretty much dont relate to each other. so in some sense, i guess you can call that "defining how different inertial frames of reference relate to each other". the definition is that that they pretty much dont have any relationship to each other.

and i dont see how blargle "enforces his time frame on ours" can be considered correct in any possible interpretation. blargle's time frame will never, ever, ever apply to ours. us disappearing in a blink of an eye, is only in his time frame, where the "in his" is the most important part of the sentence. we never, ever, ever experience "time" any differently than we always have and always will. one second to me, will always be one second to me, even if im traveling at near light speed, even if it is not one second to blargle.

in no way does any other party ever affect the way we experience time.

Ketherial on
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
MikeMan wrote: »
Ketherial wrote: »
everything he states above doesnt jive with relative time frames. in fact, he states that "blargle is condensing our past and future into one moment "

yes, from his perspective they are condensed.

which is not the fucking same thing as saying
It means the future already happened, when you get down to it. If this hypothetical Blargle could, just by walking away from us, condense our past and future into one moment, the concept of "future" as being something fundamentally different from the past has no meaning.

if you can't see the difference between saying

"from a color blind person's perspective, red and black are identical" and

"a color blind person turns red into black"

then you're a fool.
(i.e., enforcing his "time frame" on events in our "time frame"),
no, i never said that.

yes, you did. see above and below quote.
the whole fucking point of relativity is that one time frame doesnt apply to another
not true. both apply to each other. both are true.

explain what you mean when you say they "apply to each other". how do they apply? what connection do they have with each other. explain in concrete terms exactly what it is you mean when you say they apply to each other. do they affect each other? how can they ever, ever, ever apply to each other?
if you had a grasp of the material, i would not tell you to read more. as it is, i believe you need to read more. "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene would be a good starting point.

if you had a grasp of the material, you wouldnt say stupid shit like "they apply to each other".

Ketherial on
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
which is just plain fucking wrong.
MikeMan wrote: »
indeed it would be, had I said it.

Except you do say it. The thing is, you're saying a lot of stuff that's correct, and then you go and say absurd things like the things I've bolded below:
MikeMan wrote:
So, yeah, we've experienced the full amount of time. But that time can be tweaked and distorted depending on where you are. It's not just the perception. It's the actual simultaneity and duration of the events themselves. All are affected. So Blargle's perspective is not just some wank-off thought experiment. Blargle's perspective, BECAUSE IT IS EQUALLY TRUE, shows that time is as fluid as space. (that doesn't even mean anything!) It shows that our perception of events and simultaneity is flawed, because we regard them as absolutes. It also shows that events that we would consider in our future, in some sense already occurred, because a simple change of perspective can condense them into the present, in an actual, real sense.

Anyway, I have a quick question unrelated to the current discussion because I forgot: When can two observers A and B agree on the order of two events X and Y?

Marty81 on
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
Marty81 wrote: »
which is just plain fucking wrong.
MikeMan wrote: »
indeed it would be, had I said it.

Except you do say it. The thing is, you're saying a lot of stuff that's correct, and then you go and say absurd things like the things I've bolded below:
MikeMan wrote:
So, yeah, we've experienced the full amount of time. But that time can be tweaked and distorted depending on where you are. It's not just the perception. It's the actual simultaneity and duration of the events themselves. All are affected. So Blargle's perspective is not just some wank-off thought experiment. Blargle's perspective, BECAUSE IT IS EQUALLY TRUE, shows that time is as fluid as space. (that doesn't even mean anything!) It shows that our perception of events and simultaneity is flawed, because we regard them as absolutes. It also shows that events that we would consider in our future, in some sense already occurred, because a simple change of perspective can condense them into the present, in an actual, real sense.

Anyway, I have a quick question unrelated to the current discussion because I forgot: When can two observers A and B agree on the order of two events X and Y?

thank you. you have much more patience than i.

edit: as to your question, i think two observers can only really agree on the order of events if they are all within the same "time frame" (i.e., generally moving at the same speed or at speeds that are close enough to each other that they do not distort how the subjects experience time and at close enough distances where again the distance would not distort the experience).

in other words, two events on earth as observed by earthmen, probably okay.
two events light years apart, with one "stationary" and another moving at near light speeds, probably no good.

furthermore, the order of such events could likely only be agreed upon in relation to each other and not to anything outside of the subject "time frame".

Ketherial on
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
Ketherial wrote: »
Ketherial wrote: »
everything he states above doesnt jive with relative time frames. in fact, he states that "blargle is condensing our past and future into one moment " (i.e., enforcing his "time frame" on events in our "time frame"), which is just plain fucking wrong. the whole fucking point of relativity is that one time frame doesnt apply to another and that different subjects can experience different time frames based on the speed at which they are moving.
MikeMan was distinctly not saying the bolded part, well, he didn't mean it in those terms.

unless he simply has no command of the english language at all, i dont see how you can interpret "the future already happened" and "by walking away from us, blargle condenses our future and past into a moment" as anything other than him saying that blargle is enforcing his time frame upon ours.

Okay, look. By "the future has already happened," I mean that, for relativity to make sense, there needs to be a universe which encompasses all past and future events at once. Otherwise, it would make no sense to allow for these relativistic effects. Since these relativistic effects have been proven to occur, there necessarily must be a "future" out there, at all times, as must there be a past.

Perhaps it would be easier if I quoted something for you. Greene uses the example of Chewbacca, and not Blargle, but the example is the exact same thing (I ripped it off from him):
Greene wrote:
You see, Chewie's conception of reality, his freeze-frame mental image, his conception of what exists now, is every bit as real for him as our conception of reality is for us. So, in assessing what constitutes reality, it would be stunningly narrow-minded if we didn't also include his perspective. For Newton, such an egalitarian approach wouldn't make the slightest difference, because, in a universe with absolute space and absolute time, everyone's now-slice coincides. But in a relativistic universe, our universe, it makes a big difference. Whereas our familiar conception of what exists right now amounts to a single now-slice -- we usually view the past as gone and the future as yet to be -- we must augment this image with Chewie's now-slice, a now-slice that, as the discussion revealed, can differ substantially from our own. Furthermore, since Chewie's initial location and the speed with which he moves are arbitrary, we should include the now-slices associated with all possibilities. These now-slices, as in our discussion above, would be centered on Chewie's -- or some other real or hypothetical observer's -- initial location in space and would be rotated at an angle that depends on the velocity chosen. (The only restriction ceoms from the speed limit set by light.)... The collection of all these now-slices fills out a substantial region of the spacetime loaf. In fact, if space is infinite -- if now-slices extended infinitely far -- then the rotated now-slices can be centered arbitrarily far away, and hence their union sweeps through every point in the spacetime loaf.

So: if you buy the notion that reality consists of the things in your freeze-frame mental image right now, and if you agree that your now is no more valid than the now of someone located far away in space who can move freely, then reality encompasses all of the events in spacetime. The total loaf exists. Just as we envision all of space as really being out there, as really existing, we should also envision all of time as really being out there, as really existing, too. Past, present and future certainly appear to be distinct entities. But, as Einstein once said, "For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent." The only thing that's real is the whole of space-time.

If a goddamned quote from Einstein himself is not sufficient to show you you do not understand relativity, I give up.

That's from pages 138-139 of The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene.

MikeMan on
HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
• Registered User regular
edited August 2007
Marty81 wrote: »
which is just plain fucking wrong.
MikeMan wrote: »
indeed it would be, had I said it.
Except you do say it. The thing is, you're saying a lot of stuff that's correct, and then you go and say absurd things like the things I've bolded below:
MikeMan wrote:
So, yeah, we've experienced the full amount of time. But that time can be tweaked and distorted depending on where you are. It's not just the perception. It's the actual simultaneity and duration of the events themselves. All are affected. So Blargle's perspective is not just some wank-off thought experiment. Blargle's perspective, BECAUSE IT IS EQUALLY TRUE, shows that time is as fluid as space. (that doesn't even mean anything!) It shows that our perception of events and simultaneity is flawed, because we regard them as absolutes. It also shows that events that we would consider in our future, in some sense already occurred, because a simple change of perspective can condense them into the present, in an actual, real sense.

None of those things are absurd. Please read up on things before calling into question actual, demonstrated, principles of relativity. This is getting wearisome.
Anyway, I have a quick question unrelated to the current discussion because I forgot: When can two observers A and B agree on the order of two events X and Y?

When they are not moving with respect to one another.

Keth: see my post above, and kindly stop.

MikeMan on
HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES