Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:Dah, if that were the case then time is indeed changed by direction.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. That direction is relative is a cornerstone of Special Relativity; so is the idea that the rate at which events happen is affected by motion, which is demonstrably the case, see here for instance: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... plane.html

Lev Muishkin wrote:Sadly he does not mean that.

From what I gather, SpheresOfBalance is not disputing that objects in motion experience time differently, rather he is proposing a mechanism that might account for it. (My own version can be seen here: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... ou-go.html ) Without going into too much detail, Einstein was building on Galilean and Lorentz transformations, which can be used to calculate the perceived difference in other inertial frames, and claiming that in addition to our perceptions, there are physical effects, which has been demonstrated unequivocally; not least by Hafele-Keating.

Lev Muishkin wrote:SoB has been pretty clear suggesting that there was something "wrong" with the clocks.

Lev Muishkin wrote:The point is that any clock is simply an object that exists in the material world and reflects the conditions of cause and effect like any and all other objects in the material world.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:That's correct!

HexHammer wrote:

nadavsof wrote:So if time were infinite, the present would have never come. Yet it did. So time is not infinite. It can only go to infinity forward, but it has a beginning.

I have a good reason to think I'm wrong yet i can't understand why.

You use poor logic, and weird circular logic.
Your definitions are wrong, presents will come regardless of infinity, that's where you first go wrong, the one has nothing to do with the other.

Quantum physics states that time can indeed go backwards, your definition of beginning seems wrong.

Nibbana wrote:you can't be serious. time can go backwards? how? impossible!

HexHammer wrote:

Nibbana wrote:you can't be serious. time can go backwards? how? impossible!

Read up on scientific studies instead of pulling ideas out of your ass.

HexHammer wrote:http://youtu.be/CBrsWPCp_rs?t=16s

Lev Muishkin wrote:

HexHammer wrote:http://youtu.be/CBrsWPCp_rs?t=16s

A childish Pseudo-documentary on Quantum Mysticism is not answer. Fucking grow up!

uwot wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:SoB has been pretty clear suggesting that there was something "wrong" with the clocks.

Well, I think there are things he has said that could be interpreted that way, but then there is this exchange (Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:07 pm ):

Lev Muishkin wrote:The point is that any clock is simply an object that exists in the material world and reflects the conditions of cause and effect like any and all other objects in the material world.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:That's correct!

I think SOB is wrong to attribute the effect that is accounted for very nicely by SR to a different cause.
But my point is not that it's definitely a different cause, just that since magnetic fields are what it's all about, one cannot be sure that, inertial frames of reference, relativity, is necessarily the causal, when gravity and magnetic fields were two variables, not necessarily accounted for, (could be controlled), to assure the findings were consistent with STR. Remember the timeline and reasons for Einsteins GTR and subsequent STR. STR was born of a "whoops" moment. Was it made to fit the whoops? Is it a model of the difference between the actual and the original GTR, thus not necessarily a result of the proposed causals. Could it be other forces? Thats all I'm saying, I'm simply questioning the certainty, that most attribute to the believed causals.

(Once again, this will tell you exactly why time slows down with speed: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... ou-go.html ) But I also think it is plausible that time (as in the flow of physical events) could be affected by magnetic fields.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:But my point is not that it's definitely a different cause, just that since magnetic fields are what it's all about, one cannot be sure that, inertial frames of reference, relativity, is necessarily the causal, when gravity and magnetic fields were two variables, not necessarily accounted for, (could be controlled), to assure the findings were consistent with STR. Remember the timeline and reasons for Einsteins GTR and subsequent STR. STR was born of a "whoops" moment. Was it made to fit the whoops? Is it a model of the difference between the actual and the original GTR, thus not necessarily a result of the proposed causals. Could it be other forces? Thats all I'm saying, I'm simply questioning the certainty, that most attribute to the believed causals.

uwot wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:But my point is not that it's definitely a different cause, just that since magnetic fields are what it's all about, one cannot be sure that, inertial frames of reference, relativity, is necessarily the causal, when gravity and magnetic fields were two variables, not necessarily accounted for, (could be controlled), to assure the findings were consistent with STR. Remember the timeline and reasons for Einsteins GTR and subsequent STR. STR was born of a "whoops" moment. Was it made to fit the whoops? Is it a model of the difference between the actual and the original GTR, thus not necessarily a result of the proposed causals. Could it be other forces? Thats all I'm saying, I'm simply questioning the certainty, that most attribute to the believed causals.

I'm working on an article at the moment, the conclusion of which is that science knows whether the data fits the model and whether the maths is useful. Science doesn't know, and can never know whether the model is 'true', nor that advances in mathematics won't be even more accurate; it's not yet clear whether describing fundamental particles as modes of vibration of 'strings' will be more useful than thinking of them as points or quantum smudges, for instance. With regard to Special Relativity, we know that attributing time dilation experienced by moving objects to their motion produces results that are remarkably consistent with the observed data. The fact that time dilation varies with velocity supports the hypothesis that it is motion that is responsible.

SOB: What experiment on dilation, correlated varying speed with varying clock difference, that also negated the frequency at which the clock in motion broke through the earths magnetic lines of flux, as it surely increases with speed. You are aware that an east west heading was the absolute worst heading in which to conduct the experiment, right? The earths magnetic lines of flux are longitudinal, not latitudinal. With every break of a line comes disturbance, where the frequency of said disturbance is relative to speed, (more lines broken, more disturbance). Remember, I was trained by the US DOD to monitor such occurrences.

It's entirely possible that magnetism has some effect on the 'passage of time', but the Earth's magnetic field is feeble,

SOB: Or simply a 'moving clock.' Just like nanoseconds are minuscule; correlation?.

whereas the fields generated by particle accelerators are several orders of magnitude stronger.
SOB: Yes so much so, that they 'force' the particles to travel in a trajectory that is unnatural, a circle, thus limiting. All Electromagnetic Energy, Photons, travel in a straight line naturally, until acted upon by some outside force.

Given that particle accelerators usually have a few physicists around them, it should be easy enough to find any effect.
SOB: You mean a "particle on a string" or is that a puppet?

To my knowledge, no such effect has been discovered, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
SOB: If an experiment has flaws that are not understood by those conducting the experiment, one can only see the results that the flaws allow, which in such a case would seem 'normal' to the scientists.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Question: How fast do current scientists believe we are traveling as a result of the big bang, and relative to what, as nothing should be stationary, relative to what? Do our clocks speed up and slow down relative to the earths yearly cycle, as surely at some point we are traveling more additively and more negatively relative to that original big bang trajectory. It can get really complicated when we add the milky ways plane of spin to the mix. Has time changed on earth, throughout it's billions of years of existence, as surely time dilation would seem to indicate as much.