Your cognitive bias is superseded by your profound ignorance
of time. First I have to thank Ms. Presloid for her timely link. I
highly recommend it, Radio Lab in general, and that link in
No Mark, time is not a unit of measure. We have units for
measuring it. But units to measure something
are useless and irrelevant if there is not actually a quantity to
be measured. Time is the property being
measured, not the units. The units, you fool, are second, minute,
hour, day, week, month, and year.
Time is not a property, time is a concept. These "units" of time
Time has no properties. Time is a system of measuring a duration,
It is nothing more. As you said, "You fool, the units
are..." Yes, a unit
of a measure
does not a property make. Time is the measure
seconds are the units that describe the measure.
You brought up the Theory of Relativity. I assume you are referring
the Special Theory and not the General Theory. But it really
make a difference, so let's use E=mc2
. Let me step
back to the
definition of relativity, just a quick cut and paste from a
Physics, the fact, principle, or theory of the relative
rather than absolute
, character of motion,
velocity, mass, etc., and the interdependence of matter, time, and
space: as developed and
mathematically formulated by Albert Einstein and H. A. Lorentz in
the special (or restricted)
theory of relativity and by Einstein in the general theory of
relativity (an extension covering the
phenomena of gravitation), the theory of relativity includes the
statements that: 1) there is no
observable absolute motion, only relative motion
velocity of light is constant and not
dependent on the motion of the source 3) no energy can be
transmitted at a velocity greater
than that of light 4) the mass of a body in motion is a function of
the energy content and varies
with the velocity 5) matter and energy are equivalent 6) time is
7) space and time are
interdependent and form a four-dimensional continuum 8) the presence
of matter results in a
“warping” of the space-time continuum, so that a body in
motion passing nearby will describe
a curve, this being the effect known as gravitation, as evidenced by
the deflection of light rays
passing through a gravitational field.
I know what you're thinking, 7) space and time are interdependent...
This does not mean that they are physically interdependent, but
mathematically interdependent. Unlike Euclidean space where
time is treated as universal and constant. You're saying Einstein
but thinking Euclidean. You are confusing your relativistic and
non-relativistic, respectively, theories. c is the velocity of
Velocity is time, a measurement, over distance. Nothing more.
Time is being used to describe the properties of mass and
energy. Mass and energy are not being used to describe the
properties of time. Why, because time has no properties other
than to measure a duration. And even that is relative, which is
what the Theory of Relativity shows.
Back to time, what properties do you think time has?
Time can move fast, slow, even stand still. Even
Steven Hawking tried to disprove time travel. He
couldn't do it. There are no physical laws that would
prohibit time travel, either forward or back. Please tell
me how our concept of time has any effect upon the
Universe? If our concept of time were to disappear
overnight in what way would the Universe change?
Now to your idea of an hypothesis. And Glen thought I was
inconsistent. It wasn't three weeks ago that you where
all about the correct use of the word theory. Now you
want use the word theory to mean hypothesis.
1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an
explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena,
either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to
(working hypothesis) or accepted as
highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.
This come from the reference you supplied for the word
, I used their link.
How does Dr. Ockels presentation not fit into any of the
above definitions? Since when does a hypothesis require
to be peer reviewed to be an hypothesis? And you all thought
I had wired standards. Who's the postmodernists now?
...Charles Darwin's Theory
of Evolution by Natural Selection was first
presented to the Royal Academy, not at some general audience
similar to TED
Given the current conditions,
If he were alive today I bet he would.
"Theoretical physics is a branch of physics which employs
mathematical models and abstractions
of physics to rationalize, explain and predict natural
phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental
physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these
Yes, but is it in this context: http://www.notjustatheory.com/
is it in this context: 6. A hypothesis offered as a basis of
thought on a given subject; loosely, any idea ,
guess, etc., put forward to be accepted or rejected in
seeking the explanation of some condition,
occurrence, or the like.
Like the unified field
On 2013-01-31 09:28, Randy Pelton
Theory of Relativity clearly postulates that time and
space are essentially fundamentally linked. Having no
reason at the present time to doubt the Theory of
Relativity I maintain that time is built into the fabric
of space. Certainly nothing Dr. Ockels said gives me any
reason to doubt the Theory of Relativity. By the way he
is asking everyone to do precisely this even though he
does not explicitly come right out and say it. Now I
wonder why that is. He certain mentions Einstein in his
talk. The mere mention of such a well-known, even
venerated scientist, seems to lend some credibility to
his talk. But I think this just a ploy; a tactic to make
his wacky idea sound scientific.
"I live thus
On the face of it, this is
true. I never said I disagree with this. But don't be
dense here Mark. You know damn well he means far more
than what this statement literally means. The whole damn
talk was about his proposition that time passes not
simultaneously while you live but because you live. He
is saying that time is not independent of life. I am
saying that it is. So I do not accept what he is
implying in this statement.
No Mark, time is not a unit of
measure. We have units for measuring it. But units to
measure something are useless and irrelevant if there is
not actually a quantity to be measured. Time is the
property being measured, not the units. The units, you
fool, are second, minute, hour, day, week, month, and
"Is time relevant to the universe?"
Answer is yes. You cannot separate time from the universe.
I'd say that makes it relevant.
"Come on Randy, he
identified an hypothesis. It's a thought experiment."
One that he then proceeded to argue
was true before even offering up a test. Reread my
transcription of the last few minutes of his talk. The man
offered up as a statement of fact an outcome of an
experiment not yet performed and most certainly not
described by him. And he did not offer it as a thought
experiment. He suggested that it should be experimentally
tested. But never offered a description of what experiment
should be performed to test his hypothesis. The experience
that Dr. Ockels describes as having led him to this
hypothesis occurred when he traveled into space in the
1980s aboard the space shuttle. He has had a long time to
flesh out this hypothesis, think of one or more
experiments and perform them. Where is the scientific
writeup of this experiment? Why has this hypothesis not be
tested and presented by him to the scientific community
for their consideration and evaluation. Being a practicing
scientist he clearly knows the process by which scientific
ideas are examined and considered. But instead he employs
the tactics of the likes of creationists. Take your case
to the general public. Present your idea there. Dress it
up in the language of science and mathematics. Well you
don't get by bypass the peer-review process in science and
claim that what you are offering is science.
Provide data/evidence to support you
claim that "most established theories were first viewed in
this way." Some were, but most? Furthermore, these
theories were presented to the scientific community for
consideration before taking the case to the general
public. For example, Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution
by Natural Selection was first presented to the Royal
Academy, not at some general audience talk similar to TED.
And it was not dismissed as wild and wacky. Sure it was
rejected by some, mostly because of their religious faith.
But a large portion of the scientific community almost
immediately recognized the logic and probable truth of the
theory. Where is the support in the scientific community
for Dr. Ockels hypothesis? As I said, he hasn't even
attempted yet so far as I can find to even pass it through
the process that all scientific ideas must be subjected to
before you can claim scientific legitimacy.
"Randy, It's a thought
experiment, give the guy a brake (sic)."
I do not agree that what he
described is a thought experiment. In fact Dr. Ockels
himself offers it as a hypothesis. He never says anything
about a thought experiment. He calls it a hypothesis but
then provides no evidence from any experiments. Again, you
don't get to bypass the scientific process, including
actual experimentation and peer-review. This is exactly
what Ockels is doing by bringing this idea to the general
public without first going through established procedures
for vetting scientific ideas. And these procedures are in
place because they work. They have been demonstrated to
provide the best, most reliable means of ending up with
ideas that have a high probability of being true, of
actually corresponding to nature. What he prattled on
about throughout his talk was not a thought-experiment.
"By the way in what context do
think the word
theoretical is used in theoretical physics?"
Herein lies what I take as the
distinction between theoretical and experimental physics.