Gravitational Waves. oh really?

[Revoltingest]

no really....time does not exist.
not a force or a substance.
only a means of measurement.
a cognitive device made by Man to serve Man

This is to place too restrictive a limitation on what qualifies for "existence".
I say that the relationship between things also exists, eg, displacement, velocity, & time.
And there's space time.

 

[Thief]

This is to place too restrictive a limitation on what qualifies for "existence".
I say that the relationship between things also exists, eg, displacement, velocity, & time.
And there's space time.

we shall part ways in this regard.
time is not a force or a substance.
it can only exist .....in your head.

 

[Thief]

And you now reveal just how flimsy that argument truly is, since instead of addressing any of my counter-arguments, you merely repeat the argument with no new substance.

And yet I have a hard time believing that you truly think GPS and artificial satellites don't exist. Is that actually true?

look who's talking about flimsy....
devices made by Man can be tangible.
time is only a cognitive device......in your head.

 

[Riverwolf]

look who's talking about flimsy....
devices made by Man can be tangible.
time is only a cognitive device......in your head.

Except that those devices wouldn't work at all if time was a purely "cognative device".

In order for satellites to know where you are, they have to take time dilation into account.

 

[Revoltingest]

we shall part ways in this regard.
time is not a force or a substance.
it can only exist .....in your head.

It exists in the real world because we can measure it.
What a boring place our universe would be if we only allowed for predefined things to exist.
I prefer that we may be astounded & confounded by it.

 

[`mud]

Would someone define 'now' ?
~
'mud

 

[Thief]

It exists in the real world because we can measure it.
What a boring place our universe would be if we only allowed for predefined things to exist.
I prefer that we may be astounded & confounded by it.

nay.....
the real world would exist whether we measure it or not.

 

[Thief]

Would someone define 'now' ?
~
'mud

oooooo.....

a tough question!

 

[Revoltingest]

the real world would exist whether we measure it or not.

I don't disagree.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Wrong motion doesn't require time.

motion is
distance/time

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

And I bet "you guys" still believe in .... Newtonian classical physics.....

Physics should never be a matter of belief.
You are either certain of it,
or you are speculating theoretically that it may or may not exist,
or you have proven it to be illogical.

That point is something I am sure you really need to consider,
philosophically...

If you choose to 'believe' in a physics model,
then all you are doing is practicing a dogmatic cult.

Which would put you in a bracket consisting of 90%+ of the population,
as well as 70%+ of academic scientists.
(my estimates)

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger.
.

Thanks for the link, you saved me a potentially painful search.

 

[Ouroboros]

Physics should never be a matter of belief.

It shouldn't. My response in that post was to the statement "I bet you guys still believe in.... ether...."

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

According to SR, local time doesn't exist (actually, time itself doesn't exist in any classical sense, while simultaneity is an illusion).

It may not use the word 'local' but it certainly implies different 'times' for say, 2 objects.
I use the word 'local' to differentiate between the two times, depending.

while simultaneity is an illusion

In special relativity, logic is thus also an illusion.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

So it could not actually be moving at all from its own perspective.
Why?

According to special relativity, time slows down for an object that approaches the velocity of light.
(thus)
If it reached the velocity of light, time would therefore have to stop.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Special relativity is founded upon the constant velocity (and therefore motion) of light. Whatever issues you have with the logic of special relativity, this shouldn't be one: the motion of light is the foundation for the entire theory.

My point is that special relativity makes two contradictory claims.
i) Light moves at the velocity of light
ii) Time slows down for an object that approaches the velocity of light.

The first is obviously true,
but the second would cause light to stop moving if it were true.

The light moves from A -> B -> C
(from a to b thru c)

At the point 'B' it is half way, both in space and time,
so at B its time has moved.

So the photon cannot have 'indeterminate' time as would be the result if applying
the relevant time dilation formulae.

 

[Ouroboros]

According to special relativity, time slows down for an object that approaches the velocity of light.
(thus)
If it reached the velocity of light, time would therefore have to stop.

Theoretically, yes. But nothing can really reach speed of light except electromagnetic waves themselves (which light is a kind of). It would require infinite amount of energy. You could theoretically achieve 99.999% of speed of light, but for every smaller and smaller increase you need greater and greater energy.

 

[Ouroboros]

My point is that special relativity makes two contradictory claims.
i) Light moves at the velocity of light
ii) Time slows down for an object that approaches the velocity of light.

The first is obviously true,
but the second would cause light to stop moving if it were true.

No. The time as it would be experienced by the light itself would stop, not the time outside it.

If someone is moving faster than someone else, his/her time would move slower than the time for the other person. Time would still be "normal" for the second person.

If a person would be moving at the speed of light, he wouldn't experience time at all, while everyone else would see him fly by at the speed of light, without every moving within his own framework. Like having a picture of someone flying really fast.

That's why time is considered relative. It's experienced different from different perspectives.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

My quote

So if gravitational waves were detected, this would actually refute relativity.

SR says nothing about gravitation.

But it says that anything approaching the velocity of light would have time slow down to the point of zero.
Gravity waves have velocity which has time, thus that time would have to be applied to the gravity wave.
Just because Albert did not think that far is not my problem.

Theoretically, yes. But nothing can really reach speed of light except electromagnetic waves themselves (which light is a kind of). It would require infinite amount of energy. You could theoretically achieve 99.999% of speed of light, but for every smaller and smaller increase you need greater and greater energy.

So electromagnetic waves have infinite energy?

 

[Ouroboros]

My quote

SR didn't address gravity, but GR did. If I remember right.

[/quote]
But it says that anything approaching the velocity of light would have time slow down to the point of zero.
Gravity waves have velocity which has time, thus that time would have to be applied to the gravity wave.
Just because Albert did not think that far is not my problem.
[/quote]
Do gravity waves move at the speed of light? Not sure.

So electromagnetic waves have infinite energy?

No. Don't think so. We're talking about the energy you have to add to a system to increase its speed. So, perhaps the kinetic energy is somehow infinite? Honestly, I don't know about that part.