It was said that Einstein's special relativity (particularly spacetime curvature) various experiments, like Hafele–Keating experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdRmCqylsME
And so they tried to prove that time dilation exists. So is spacetime curvature.
The problem is: I have alway thought that time is an invention. Time objectively does not exists. Humans need something to record events (record months, minutes, seconds), so the concept of 'time' was invented.
I find it unbelievable that simply by moving around, an object can speed up its own 'time'. That means if there is person A 'at rest' and person B moving. If an event E were to occur and marked in time by both A and B. E would occur faster to B than to A.
>I find it unbelievable that simply by moving around, an object can speed up its own 'time'
That's an observable fenomena.
It actually doesn't bend with velocity.
>>7967762
>I find it unbelievable that simply by moving around, an object can speed up its own 'time'. That means if there is person A 'at rest' and person B moving. If an event E were to occur and marked in time by both A and B. E would occur faster to B than to A.
And yet the speed of light in a vacuum is still constant
>>7967762
>I find it unbelievable that simply by moving around, an object can speed up its own 'time'. That means if there is person A 'at rest' and person B moving. If an event E were to occur and marked in time by both A and B. E would occur faster to B than to A.
But you can't say who is at rest and who is moving - A sees B moving quickly, but B sees A doing the same! That means that A's clock appears to tick slowly compared to B's FROM B'S POINT OF VIEW, but B''s clock appears slower than A's from A's point of view!
Also, time dilation happens even without spacetime curvature, and curvature is part of general relativity, not special relativity (which is like general relativity but without gravity).
>>7967972
No because clock B has to accelerate and decelerate which also affects things
can someone explain
the atom clock
it looses some time
but how can i mesure it?½
>>7968756
in the roughest sense, measuring time is the same as measuring distance. the faster you move, the more distance each cycle covers. since nothing can move faster than light, the clock is always observed as moving slower. that's how it's measured. think about how far a tick is on a secondhand when it translates along the x axis near c speed. you're dilating time in itself. it's not an error, it's just that space and time are interconnected.
>>7967762
Correct, time does not exist. Many of the very foundations of our science are completely incorrect. 90% or more of hard science is just guess work, proofed with "variables" that shoehorn them to be "correct". They are faulty from their very origin and premise which causes a vicious circle of validation.
If time actually "existed" you'd be able to travel backwards in time.
>>7968756
>no smoke coming from either end
>no visible cherry
>thin layer of blackened paper indicates one drag was taken before letting the spliff go out
>not even ashed
4/10. good roll, but please pay attention to detail.
>>7967762
Minutes, hours, secends, and so on are made up. Our method of *counting* time is made up. That doesn't mean time itself is.
That said though relativity doesn't really support the classical view of time either. There is no singular timeline. Different observers can observer non causally linked events to have happened in different orders for example.
So you're right that how we usually think of time is something we made up for our convinence but that doesn't mean time isn't a thing.
>>7968799
And your model is?
Distance is made up too. Therefore all of science is wrong and i'm super'smart, and the reason i failed high school science is because it is science which is retarded, not me.
Fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap
It doesn't have to be true as long as it's consistent with observations/useful.
is half life effected by time dilation?
>>7969034
distance =/= time
>>7969153
Yes, in fact particle lifetime is an example often used when teaching about time dilation. Muons are created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays and move towards earth at about 0.99c but if time behaved classically then we wouldn't see them because they would decay before they got close enough due to their short lifetime; however we do see them because they appear to experience time "slower" from our perspective so their lifetime appears longer. From their perspective their lifetime is the normal length but the distance to the earth is contracted so they still get closer than would classically be allowed.
>>7968846
Can you prove that time exists?
>>7969747
Can you prove space exists?
>>7968756
The atom clock was synchronized with another one on earth.
>>7969759
Can you prove that god exists?
>>7969762
Can you prove God doesn't exist?
>>7969759
I mean, if time were to exists, what would it be like?
Is there anything in physics that make up 'time'?
Would it be a record of all events in the universe?
In which case, where is this information stored?
If space is removed then we would know that distance would not exist, there would be absolutely nothing (Not empty, but simply nothing). Things like 2 dimension and 3 dimension would not exists.
What would happen if this so called 'time' is removed?
>>7969747
Now, I'm looking at my clock. It says 10:59 AM.
Now, I'm sitting here typing this second sentence, still 10:59 AM.
Now, I'm looking at my clock again and it says 11:00AM.
Define "time" as the difference between the those three events. By that definition, time must exist.
>>7969796
However, it could be because, your clock moves because there is electrical energy converted to kinetic energy that causes the the clock hand to move.
It could be that 3 events simply occur without 'time', one after another. The clock hand ticking maybe simply an event. And the difference between this events is simply an abstraction.
>>7969195
this explained both length contraction and time dilation better than anything else I've read has before thank you
>>7969788
>I mean, if time were to exists, what would it be like?
Time obviously exists. It is the measured sequence of events from a particular reference frame. It's not much different from space.
>Is there anything in physics that make up 'time'?
No.
>Would it be a record of all events in the universe?
No.
>In which case, where is this information stored?
What information?
>>7969831
>It could be that 3 events simply occur without 'time', one after another.
>>7969901
Are you saying that causality cannot exist without 'time'?
>>7969897
>Time obviously exists. It is the measured sequence of events from a particular reference frame. It's not much different from space.
If time as you say exists. and it is the measured sequence of events from a particular reference frame. Then are you saying that: each reference frame has its own 'time'?
>>7969916
Of course. For one thing to happen after another there must be time.
>>7969924
Each reference frame experiences time differently, due to curves in spacetime.
>>7969938
But if there is time, then there must be a law that governs it. Otherwise time paradoxes would occur. And this law is known as causality.
But you are saying however, is the opposite. Time governing causality.
>>7969953
Relativity does not affect causality, it affects simultaneity. So two reference frames may disagree on the order in which two events occur, unless those events are separated by less time than the amount of time it would take for light to cross the distance they are separated by. Then the two events are potentially causally linked and every reference frame will agree on the order in which the events occurred.
>>7967769
Yes because if you did everything that can pick uo sufficient speed would just either decay very quickly or age, if you get my point but nothing does that unless we havent been able to move fast.
>>7969953
A, B, and C are events in spacetime. The grey triangles represent the lightcone of event B (notice that A and C are outside of the light cone indicating that they cannot be causally connected). The yellow grid represents the time dilation of the observer, and the white line is a line of simultaneity. Since the observer cannot move faster than light, events within the lightcone will always have the same order and events outside the lightcone will have different order.
>>7969986
*events within the lightcone of B will always have the same order relative to B
>>7969968
I'm not arguing about whether relativity affects causality or not. I'm saying causality is not the effect of time. And if causality is merely a sequence of events occurring, then causality can exists without time.
If time does exists, and it does govern causality, then it needs a way to resolve time paradoxes. And as far as thinking goes, there is no way to resolve time paradoxes. So, if time doesn't exist, time paradoxes wouldn't exist, and causality is protected.
If you can somehow use relativity to prove that time paradoxes can be resolved, and causality is protected at the same time. Then I will say, yeah, time really is a thing that might exists in physics, otherwise, it is just an abstraction invented by humans.
>>7969897
If time exists, then what is it?
If time is 'the measured sequence of events from a particular reference frame'. Then the measurement is an abstraction, a concept invented by humans.
>>7969943
But it might just be experiencing events occuring differently. What does it mean to 'experience time differently'?
>>7970063
>I'm saying causality is not the effect of time.
This is a nonsense sentence. To say that something is the effect of something else is to employ causality. Saying that time "causes" causality or doesn't "cause" causality is meaningless.
>And if causality is merely a sequence of events occurring, then causality can exists without time.
A sequence of events requires time. It's like saying two objects are some distance apart without space. Gibberish.
>If time does exists, and it does govern causality, then it needs a way to resolve time paradoxes. And as far as thinking goes, there is no way to resolve time paradoxes.
If by time paradox you mean causal loop then this is resolved by the fact that causally connected events must always occur in a specific order, which I already explained above.
>So, if time doesn't exist, time paradoxes wouldn't exist, and causality is protected.
Again, causality cannot exist without time. Before you start constructing ideas you must first understand the words you are using. What does causality mean? What is a time paradox?
>>7970089
>If time exists, then what is it?
Time.
>If time is 'the measured sequence of events from a particular reference frame'. Then the measurement is an abstraction, a concept invented by humans.
By that logic, everything is an abstraction. What exactly are you trying to say?
>>7970103
It means that you measure a sequence of events one way, and I measure it another way. This is not caused by human error, it is caused by the distortion in spacetime inherent to our movement through spacetime.
>>7970116
I admit that: "A sequence of events requires time. It's like saying two objects are some distance apart without space." is a good argument that I cannot find a rebuttal for. And that time as you say exists.
I wonder why. At first I thought that my argument in OP for time is an invention by humans was a good argument. But every argument I make, I always tend to lose logically.
>>7970179
Everything that we can discuss can be seen as an invention by humans. It's an irrelevant statement.
>>7969831
Time is literally the interval between these events anon. It can be perceived differently by different observers but its still there, its a thing.
Things don't happen all at once, that's time.
>>7968799
>I know this because I can't imagine that time is a natural phenomenon and I can't understand modern science therefore it's all false
>>7971020
Buzz said that right? You know he was actually the delusional one...
>>7967762
Do you my sir, use the other board /b/?
