<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return

Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 14 2008 at 5:13 AM
socratus

Can Time Exist Without Matter?
1.
According to Newton the answer is  Yes.
2.
According to SRT and GRT the answer is  No.
3.
Who is right? Who is wrong?
How is possible to understand their?
==============

 Respond to this message
bob s

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 14 2008, 7:50 AM
 "Can Time Exist Without Matter? 1. According to Newton the answer is  Yes. 2. According to SRT and GRT the answer is  No. 3. Who is right? Who is wrong? How is possible to understand their?" socratus, I think you have your "yes" and "no" reversed, maybe you could be more pointed as to why you have them the way they are. Time can only exist with motion so my question is, can motion exist without matter? If yes, then what is it that is in motion? bob s
Curt Youngs

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 14 2008, 9:25 AM
 I think a good place to start the visualization is with Mr. Waterman's imaginary universal background grid. This grid is infinite, and three dimensional, the way I picture it. The grid itself does not move, however the aether, the universe and everything in it never stops ebbing and flowing. Thus, even the aether experiences movement, and consequently: Time. Bob S is right. Time is the motion. In my mind time exists without matter because the aether moves too. Now, it is impossible to measure the movement of the aether, because we have no tools to detect it. Mr. Waterman proposes that the aether is composed of almost infinitesimally tiny spheres, of which the only sensible property is inertia. So, in this sense, we detect it. These spheres are closely packed. The thing to remember is that closely packed spheres can assume different shapes, so that the aether is compressible unlike a solid, even though they are in contact with each other, and the spheres are not compressible themselves. So, as I see the situation: Time does not exist for the grid, It does exist for space because the aether ebbs and flows. Matter consists of various arrangements of these same close packed spheres, and matter is in motion internally as well as externally. To stop the motion is to stop time in my imagination, to take stock of a particular geometry of an instant, in the manner of a three dimension picture. Electromagnetic radiation, including light is just a disturbance of the aether, and causes oscillations in the aether, even though the aether is not transported by the EMR. I differ with Mr. Waterman on this point. These oscillations are another reason that there is time in "space." This topic is a hornet's nest filled with demons.
Harry

October 14 2008, 10:46 AM
 I object to your statement above. If you answer yes to any one of them you have to answer yes to all, and if the answer is no to one it must be no to all. I see no reanson to suppose SRT and GRT to be different is this regard from Newtonian physics. You need to explain your claim.
Anonymous

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 14 2008, 12:42 PM
 "Can Time Exist Without Matter?" No. There would never be anything to measure. That is, if nothing changes location, then time is quite and irrelevant thing. However, there is matter...which moves and hence, there is change. Please try out my first three posted pdfs and see if it makes some sense to you...you can click right from gsj home page...as they were recently posted. math - physical fixed point space fixed interval time I am not interested in discussing the semantic position of yes it does, but I will say this again and again....to merit any sort of valid discussion, those involved always need to define ALL terms first. So, this is quite a task with "time"...as it is about as an elusive concept as their is; many have tried. I will also say this, that one walks down a veiled road, when no distinction is made between time and light. Lastly, that this same veil of fog exists, when again no distinction is made between an event and the spherical light "shell" that "records" that completed event. For, example, once a star explodes...one can never go fast enough to stand on that star again...no matter how close you where before the star exploded. Noting that the spherical light "shell" showing the exploding star...lives forever. For Einstein, we he himself observes it...makes it the event. I disagree, in that...this is not the event...him seeing that shell, indeed the event is the star exploding. While I am at it, I might as well also say that Einstein's use of only two observers should be questioned. The use of 4 observers leads directly to multilateration. http://watermanpolyhedron.com/FOUROBS.html steve waterman
Max

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 14 2008, 3:04 PM
 Matter doesn't exist without Space, Time is a part of Space. Your question is formatted weirdly.
Stanley16

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 14 2008, 4:57 PM
 socratus: ... How does this single point created if the matter can escape from any strong gravitational force? Stan: This single point of the Big Bang is no ordinary black hole. Matter can't escape from it, because there is no place or space for matter escape to. socratus: Can Time Exist Without Matter? 1. According to Newton the answer is  Yes. 2. According to SRT and GRT the answer is  No. 3. Who is right? Who is wrong? How is possible to understand their? Stan: Actually, Socratus; SRT has nothing to say about the existence of time independent of matter, but GRT says the answer is Yes; and one of the solutions of its field equations leads to a universe with no matter at all: http://www.answers.com/topic/willem-de-sitter
Max

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 15 2008, 1:51 AM
 socratus: ... How does this single point created if the matter can escape from any strong gravitational force? Stan: This single point of the Big Bang is no ordinary black hole. Matter can't escape from it, because there is no place or space for matter escape to. More accurately, the interior of a black hole, IS a Universe. You can tell this when you observe the way the equations model the interface region. Then consider what would happen if you removed a Universe from around a black hole, it would unfold just like our Universe is. socratus: Can Time Exist Without Matter? 1. According to Newton the answer is  Yes. 2. According to SRT and GRT the answer is  No. 3. Who is right? Who is wrong? How is possible to understand their? Stan: Actually, Socratus; SRT has nothing to say about the existence of time independent of matter, but GRT says the answer is Yes; and one of the solutions of its field equations leads to a universe with no matter at all: http://www.answers.com/topic/willem-de-sitter Yeah, the De-Sitter is a basic version, but to me it speaks more to space and matter being more closely related than we currently treat them. A De-Sitter universe still has mass-energy, just no curvature, because no knots.

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 15 2008, 5:25 AM
 Can Time Exist Without Matter? According to Newton the answer is  Yes. ======= Newton wrote about himself that he was a boy, playing at the seaside of Knowledge. The sea and all around the sea belongs to the gravity reference frame Earth. So, for Newton, and for us the space and time of our planate Earth is absolute parameters. ======== Can Time Exist Without Matter? According to SRT and GRT the answer is  No. =============== According to GRT every gravity reference frame is relative system and depends of its mass and speed. Mass and speed (according to SRT) are relative parameters and therefore space and time of every gravity reference frame is relative system. So, Newton was right only as a simple inhabitant of our planate. ============= If the Time and Space depend only from mass and speed then the question comes: What is the quantum of mass in Classic physics, in SRT, in GRT?  ================..
Curt Youngs

Without separating the wavefronts from the event,

October 15 2008, 11:16 AM
 everything will not be logical.

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 15 2008, 2:07 PM
 =================. Curt Youngs wrote: Without separating the wavefronts from the event, everything will not be logical. =========. In other words ,for my opinion, Curt Youngs ask:  what is dualism of particle/ wave? ==========.
AAF

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 15 2008, 7:15 PM
 socratus: Can Time Exist Without Matter? 1. According to Newton the answer is  Yes. 2. According to SRT and GRT the answer is  No. 3. Who is right? Who is wrong? How is possible to understand their? Stan: Actually, Socratus; SRT has nothing to say about the existence of time independent of matter, but GRT says the answer is Yes; and one of the solutions of its field equations leads to a universe with no matter at all: http://www.answers.com/topic/willem-de-sitter AAF: No; General Relativity can't say 'YES'! Because General Relativity does not recognize time as an independent entity. It recognizes only Einstein's so-called Space-time Continuum; and that is it.
Max

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 15 2008, 8:04 PM
 Vast logical error alert! Space-time can exist without matter, therefore Time can exist without matter. The ARROW of time is probably related to matter, but you could also say that the unfurling of space-time which generates that directionality, causes matter to interact a certain way.
AAF

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 15 2008, 10:02 PM
 Hermann Minkowski wrote: The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality. Hermann Minkowski, 1908 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space And that means Max's 'logical alert' does not represent the official viewpoint of Relativity; correct?
Curt Youngs

October 15 2008, 11:39 PM

=================.
Curt Youngs wrote:
Without separating the wave-fronts from the event,
everything will not be logical.
=========.
In other words ,for my opinion,
 what is dualism of particle/ wave?
==========.
Curt Youngs writes: Actually, what I thought I was making was a statement, that being:

The event creating the spherical expanding wave-front, and the eventual detection of the wave-front which reveals the event are actually two separate events. People seem to think there is no difference between the two. This creates illogical conclusions.

The dualism of the reception of short wavelength electromagnetic radiation comes about because the transmission and absorption of the wave at the near field is not well known. Visit http://www.unquantum.net/> for starters on this subject.

 This message has been edited by curtyoungs on Oct 16, 2008 12:19 AM

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 16 2008, 3:22 AM
 1. Curt Youngs writes: Actually, what I thought I was making was a statement, that being: The event creating the spherical expanding wave-front, and the eventual detection of the wave-front which reveals the event are actually two separate events. People seem to think there is no difference between the two. This creates illogical conclusions. The dualism of the reception of short wavelength electromagnetic radiation comes about because the transmission and absorption of the wave at the near field is not well known. Visit http://www.unquantum.net/> for starters on this subject. 2. Max Planck Nobel Lecture, June 2, 1920 "There is in particular one problem whose exhaustive solution could provide considerable elucidation. What becomes of the energy of a photon after complete emission?" 3. I think these two problems are equal. Their decision is hides into dualism of particle. 4. Visit http://www.unquantum.net/> for starters on this subject. The page cannot be found ===============================
Max

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 16 2008, 5:11 AM
 AAF: Hermann Minkowski wrote: The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality. Hermann Minkowski, 1908 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space And that means Max's 'logical alert' does not represent the official viewpoint of Relativity; correct? Max: Nope, you didn't even read what I wrote did you? I said Space-time can exist without matter. That is the official relativity viewpoint. My personal modification is that matter cannot exist without Space-time.
Curt Youngs

Sorry

October 16 2008, 10:57 AM

I happen to think, at this time, that the main property of the ether is inertia, the property that provides moment to mass. Now, the electromagnetic force is a property of the near field. It is induced by the pulsation or rotation of matter. In the far field, the propagation consists in spherical undulations of the ether. Nothing actually "travels" except the undulations (as waves do in air or water.) It is the rotation or pulsation of matter that passes the energy to the ether, and at the absorption end, the undulations induce the matter there to build up a similar near field that "sucks" the energy into the mass, or re-emit it through the same type of rotation or pulsation. The near field actions are superluminal.

 This message has been edited by curtyoungs on Oct 16, 2008 1:03 PM

Re: Can Time Exist Without Matter?

October 16 2008, 1:31 PM
 Curt Youngs wrote. I happen to think, at this time, that the main property of the ether is inertia, the property that provides moment to mass. Now, the electromagnetic force is a property of the near field. It is induced by the pulsation or rotation of matter. In the far field, the propagation consists in spherical undulations of the ether. Nothing actually "travels" except the undulations (as waves do in air or water. It is the rotation or pulsation of matter that passes the energy to the ether, and at the absorption end, the undulations induce the matter there to build up a similar near field that "sucks" the energy into the mass, or re-emit it through the same type of rotation or pulsation.. ============== When I was a child my uncle took rabbi to study me Bible. I didnt understand it and I said to myself: it is fairy-tale. Your message sound for me in the same way. Why? What is ether? What is inertia? ============. From an article: An old professor of mine used to say that anyone who can answer that question what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize.  ===============. the property that provides moment to mass....= tautology . Etc.. =========. Sorry.
Curt Youngs

Can't trick an old rabbi!

October 16 2008, 2:43 PM
 You are right, It's just that I think the inertia that keeps matter in its particular state of motion is in the ether rather than in the matter. You can say that a non sensible substance does not exist, but you can't prove that either. Supposing various properties is a step to finding them. I am ready to default on this at any time, unlike Max, who tenaciously maintains his allegiance to his theory, regardless of logic, which is fine too.

 < Previous Page 1 2 3 Next > Respond to this message
 << Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return