Likewise, we do not experience duration — Metaphysician Undercover
What counts as scientific time?The problem is that SR is only applicable to inertial frames which doesn't exist (except as an approximation), so SR had no relevance to any discussion about light or scientific time (my distinction,). Only GR is relevant. Under GR, scientific time becomes relative. — Rich
What counts as scientific time? — Agustino
I know you're anti-science, but what does that statement even mean???Scientific time is measurement of simultaneous events. — Rich
In scientific time, each man ages faster than his counterpart since for each man, it is the other that has all the velocity. Sans acceleration, they cannot ever meet but once and have a meaningful comparison of age.And would you agree that if I take a man and fly him close to the speed of light he will age slower than one that remains on Earth? — Agustino
Okay, I'm not going to dispute that, at least not now, but I've asked you something different apart from that.Scientific time is measurement of simultaneous events. It is not the duration of experience which is heterogeneous and continuous. It is there essence of Zeno's paradoxes. Duration is indivisible.
The only way to observe the duration of life is by closing one's eyes and directly experience it. One can also mediate, practice Tai Chi or yoga to get an even deeper understanding. — Rich
And would you agree that if I take a man and fly him close to the speed of light he will age slower than one that remains on Earth? And if so, then some of the effects of GR/SR are ontological no? They're not just measurement effects. I mean we can't presume both start as babies, and one reaches old age, while the other is still in his teens and then claim that it's just a measurement effect and not ontological right? — Agustino
And would you agree that if I take a man and fly him close to the speed of light he will age slower than one that remains on Earth? — Agustino
Will the one who travels close to the speed of light be younger than the other one upon his return? I don't care what theory you consider when answering this question, but please answer with yes or no.No one should she differently each can be considered accelerating relative to reach other. However, there may be biological effects as a result of the actual real duration of acceleration. In other words, there may be real effects but independent of Relativity which assumes no privileged frame of reference. — Rich
An accelerating frame of reference is privileged. Only inertial frames of reference aren't.Relativity which assumes no privileged frame of reference. — Rich
ill the one who travels close to the speed of light be younger than the other one upon his return? I don't care what theory you consider when answering this question, but please answer with yes or no. — Agustino
An accelerating frame of reference is privileged. Only inertial frames of reference aren't. — Agustino
That's false. According to GR, the accelerating reference frame is privileged. In an accelerating reference frame it can be distinguished who is at rest and who is accelerating. In an inertial reference frame it cannot be distinguished who is at rest or who is moving.Who knows? As I said, as far as GR is concerned each can be considered accelerating relative to each other. — Rich
As I said, that's not true. Remember what the first assumption of SR is - laws of physics are the same for all observers in inertial reference frames. Accelerating reference frames are NOT inertial.The equations should be reciprocal. — Rich
Well, I think this is by this point beyond doubt. We've seen atomic clocks slow down, that's more than enough evidence that the predictions of SR/GR with regards to time dilation hold true.Who knows? — Rich
No, you cannot use the equations in a way which disagrees with the assumptions from which the equations are derived in the first place. One assumption of GR, which is used to derive the equations is that accelerating reference frames can be distinguished from those that are at rest.The equations do not identify which twin is to be considered accelerating. — Rich
That's false. According to GR, the accelerating reference frame is privileged. In an accelerating reference frame it can be distinguished who is at rest and who is accelerating. In an inertial reference frame it cannot be distinguished who is at rest or who is moving. — Agustino
Not in an accelerated frame of reference.What is at rest? — Rich
Yes, spacetime does have to do with clock time. It explains that clocks move slower in certain regions of space and even allows us to calculate how much slower.The equations include some really strange definition of time that had nothing to do with clock time as we know it. It's called curved space-time and shouldn't be confused with clock time. It's its own beast. — Rich
For example, atomic clocks are shown to slow down when flown around the Earth — Agustino
The equations do not identify which twin is to be considered accelerating. Either one can be chosen since from either twin's frame of reference, it can be accelerating from the other. — Rich
All this is utterly wrong. The stay-home person is not accelerating in the frame of the rocket twin. It takes force to accelerate, and no force is being applied.The equations should be reciprocal. I don't know how you pick which one is accelerating. — Rich
One twin getting older than the other is not a function of acceleration. Suppose both get on a rocket, and one accelerates at so many G straight out and back, and the other furriously orbits with similar acceleration. They both experience the same acceleration but the orbiting one is much older (more proper time in his worldline) when they meet. So it is not biological effects of being under acceleration. It's not the velocity since in the frame of each, it is the other one that has all the velocity.However, as we all know, acceleration can be felt, and therefore may be biological effects as a result of the actual real duration of acceleration. In other words, there may be real effects but independent of Relativity which assumes no privileged frame of reference. — Rich
Privileged means it is the one correct frame. There is no correct accelerated or inertial frame, so none is privileged. Or are you just yanking Rich's chain?An accelerating frame of reference is privileged. Only inertial frames of reference aren't. — Agustino
All this is utterly wrong. The stay-home person is not accelerating in the frame of the rocket twin. It takes force to accelerate, and no force is being applied. — noAxioms
F=MA.All this is utterly wrong. The stay-home person is not accelerating in the frame of the rocket twin. It takes force to accelerate, and no force is being applied.
— noAxioms
I don't see how either twin knows this or how the clocks know this. Do the feel it? To the twin on Earth, it appears that he is accelerating away from the rocket. Where in the the equations does it identify which twin to choose? — Rich
"In his book “Time Reborn” Smolin argues that physicists have inappropriately banned the
reality of time because they confuse their timeless mathematical models with reality,
(Smolin, 2013). — Rich
Why? You have not sketched out yet why this primacy of philosophical time over scientific time.To philosophers who is interested in penetrating the nature of life, it is this duration that they should be focusing on. — Rich
The point is that it can't be felt. The clock as such does not feel as if it's slowing down but when compared to the other one it does. So if one person travels close to the speed of light while the other stands still, the one that travels will return younger than the one that stands still. However, the one that travels will not feel like he ages any faster. But when he returns, he will be younger than the other.That physical things are affected by acceleration (applied force) and gravitation is observable and can felt. But this is a far cry from giving equations ontological status as an explanation for lived time. — Rich
What does time being external to him mean? This seems to be precisely what duration isn't, since duration is internal.His claim was that time is both real (which means external to him) and
fundamental, hypothesizing that the very laws of physics are not fixed, but evolve over time46. — Rich
This is only if the deceleration is very fast when the rocket turns around. Otherwise, there would be no issue. Furthermore, since everything slows down - including for that matter the synapses in your brain, etc. - you will not perceive that anything has slowed down. To perceive that something slows down would be to presuppose that your internal workings don't slow down while your external environment does - but this isn't what happens. Both of them slow down. Thus in your experience you would not perceive a change.My guess is that the physical body will actually perish under such prolonged pressure. Who knows what happens to consciousness. — Rich
Okay, I did not mean to use privileged in that sense. I meant to use privileged in the sense that the accelerating frame is distinguishable from the one that is at rest in a way that the frame moving at constant speed isn't distinguishable from the one that is at rest.Privileged means it is the one correct frame. There is no correct accelerated or inertial frame, so none is privileged. Or are you just yanking Rich's chain? — noAxioms
There's no reason to disagree with special relativity for the simple reason that we have never observed light traveling at a different speed anywhere in all our observations so far. It could be possible, but we've just never seen it happen. So there is no reason to doubt SR. A rational person just cannot doubt it.Why do you say that no one with a good understanding of physics can disagree with special relativity? According to what you've said here, all one has to disagree with to disagree with SR, is the assumption that light travels at the same speed everywhere. Unless the speed of light has been measured in every possible type of circumstance, then there really is no reason to believe in SR. We can easily fail in our inductive generalizations when we conclude that X is the case in all types of situations, without testing X in all different types of situations. — Metaphysician Undercover
Time as we experience only exists as an experience of the past moving into the present, continuously. No one experiences the future. — Rich
Before the creation of the Universe there was no time for the physicist/materialist because there were no phenomena that could be used to measure time. — Agustino
Why? You have not sketched out yet why this primacy of philosophical time over scientific time. — Agustino
Again, why? It could be that time as experienced is illusory, Einstein certainly thought so for example. This requires some argument.If one is interested in exploring the nature of life (ontology) then time as experienced becomes primary. — Rich
Wouldn't this imply that an accelerating frame of reference is indistinguishable from one that is at rest? This is precisely what GR denies though - the claim is that they are distinguishable. Meaning each observer can determine who is really accelerating.As for GR, as a matter of measuring, both twins can view themselves as accelerating away from the other as they take measurements. — Rich
Okay thanks for that. Will be watching it.Here is an interview with Lee Smolin. In it, he discusses the many problems of time when approaching it from QM and GR. He then goes on to suggest that possibly science had it all wrong and time had primacy over matter (time in this case can be viewed as Bergsin's duration) and the implications on all of science in this were so, e.g. that laws evolve over time. I can't sort out the scientific mess. I can only proceed with direct observation of life and develop a metaphysical ontology based upon these observations. — Rich
It could be that time as experienced is illusory, Einstein certainly thought so for example. — Agustino
In the meantime, why do you think the direct observation of life yields knowledge of ontology? What if the direct observation of life is illusory, and hence yields knowledge of an illusion, not really of the way things are? — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.