Louis, as in Louis Hissink, made a very keen Kantian observation the other day in the comments section.
"What we have thrown out is purely mathematical science with no connection to physical reality, and why we throw out Einstein's relativity theory - his initial error was to make time a physical entity - it isn't. Knock that assumption off its perch and the rest falls down." -- Louis Hissink, Nov 2008
Which got me thinking (yet again) about the unparalleled genius of my favorite scientist and philosopher of all time, Immanuel Kant, a.k.a. "The Great Chinaman of Königsberg" (Nietzsche, 1886).
"Ah-so, Grasshopper, your shaolin metaphysical training with respect to transcendental idealism in accordance with empirical realism is now complete," Kant must've been saying with folded legs and squinting eyes in Nietszche's imagination.
As you may or may not know, it was Immanuel Kant who discovered in 1754 that the Aristotelian/Newtonian concept of "absolute, true, and mathematical time" (Newton, 1687) does not exist in material reality but can only be thought of as ideal.
In order for time to be known in any absolute sense, it must be in the form of units, and in order for it to be in the form of units, it must be measured. So what units is time measured in? Days of course.
What Kant discovered in 1754 that changed the world forever is that the rotation of the Earth is being retarded due to tidal forces not to mention the radial increase of the Earth, thus the lengthening of the day.
"Kant pointed out in the middle of last [18th] century, what had not previously been discovered by mathematicians or physical astronomers, that the frictional resistance against tidal currents on the earth's surface must cause a diminution of the earth's rotational speed. This really great discovery in Natural Philosophy seems to have attracted little attention,--indeed to have passed quite unnoticed,--among mathematicians, and astronomers, and naturalists, until about 1840, when the doctrine of energy began to be taken to heart." -- Lord Kelvin, physicist, 1897
Time, according to Kant (1781), is the a priori form of our intuition and therefore not a thing in itself or a so-called "fabric" as claimed by 20th century dogmatism.
"If we...consequently take objects as they are in themselves, then time is nothing." -- Immanuel Kant, philosopher, 1781
"...As our intuition is always sensuous, no object can ever be presented to us in experience, which does not come under the condition of time. On the other hand, we deny to time all claim to absolute reality; that is, we deny that it, without having regard to the form of our sensuous intuition, absolutely inheres in things as a condition or property. Such properties as belong to objects as things in themselves never can be presented to us through the medium of the senses. Herein consists, therefore the transcendental ideality of time, according to which, if we abstract the subjective conditions of sensuous intuition, it is nothing, and cannot be reckoned as subsisting or inhereing in objects as things in themselves, independently of our intuition." -- Immanuel Kant, philosopher, 1781
If I had known about the essay contest "On The Nature of Time" and the $10,000 cash prize being offered by the Foundational Sciences Institute earlier [in time?], I would've addressed this issue in detail.
Physicist Brian Cox and others, interviewed on the BBC, agree as well.
And thus the house of cards that Einsteinian relativity is built upon comes tumbling down.
The speed of light is not a constant "c" as there is no such material thing as empty space, a vacuum, or void (the universe is filled with plasma) and the speed of light has been experimentally slowed to less than 38 miles per hour (Hau et al., 1999, 2001) in a frozen sodium ion chamber. The records continue to be broken. Therefore special relativity has been empirically falsified.
Newton, I., Principles of Math Treating Time As Absolute, 1687
Kant, I., Kant's Cosmogony: As In His Essay On The Retardation Of The Rotation Of The Earth And His Natural History And Theory Of The Heavens, 1754
Kant, I., Critique of Pure Reason, 1781
Kant, I., Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, 1786
Nietzsche, F.W., Beyond Good and Evil, 1886
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
29 comments:
ALBERT EINSTEIN WAS A BRILLIANT MAN, BUT BRILLIANT MEN MAKE MISTAKES
"What we have thrown out is purely mathematical science with no connection to physical reality, and why we throw out Einstein's relativity theory - his initial error was to make time a physical entity - it isn't. Knock that assumption off its perch and the rest falls down." -- Louis Hissink, Nov 2008
Yes, Hissink is correct.
What is a physical entity? It has a "force". That's what Einstein did in his equations, he turned "time" into a force that interacts with other forces.
Time does not physically interact with "forces".
With all due respect to the title of the post and young Mr. Cox, the question is not, "what time is it?"
But, rather, "What is time?"
And the answer is simple: "Duration."
I'm sorry to have to disagree with Mr. Cox and possibly with OilIsMastery, but time is not variant, time is constant.
Time does not change, speed up, or slow down according to the action of physical forces.
Time, or more accurately, duration is constant at all places in the Universe at all seperate "durations" on the lineal advancement of the Universe.
Einstein's hypothesis was that "time" does change, speed up, or slow down according to the action of physical forces (gravity). (Einstein never carried out more than "thought experiments" to justify his hypothesis.)
The "action" of physical forces "over time" or duration does change.
Man's perception of time can change, but the "duration" is constant.
OilIsMastery states:
"As you may or may not know, it was Immanuel Kant who discovered in 1754 that the Aristotelian/Newtonian concept of "absolute, true, and mathematical time" (Newton, 1687) does not exist in material reality but can only be thought of as ideal."
Wrong.
First, Kant didn't "discover" anything. Kant postulated a hypothesis, that can't be proved in the physical world. Kant's hypothesis was a philosophical construct, metaphysics if you will.
(When Einstein made "duration" into a force, Einstein engaged in metaphysics -- no physical observations or measurements contributed to his idea, strictly "thought experiments".)
Kant "weaved" a philosophical construct in much the same way as Einstein, and in a loose sense came up with much the same answer: Time is "relative".
Kant limited his construct to the perception of Man; Einstein expanded Kant's idea to say "time" is relative to the dominate force in the Universe: (as he understood it) Gravity.
Both men were in error.
As stated before, "time", more accurately thought of as "duration", is constant.
Why does Man's preception of time change?
OilIsMastery is correct when he points out that the intensity, speed, or quantity of "actions" change over time impacting Man's perception of "time."
Let's take some examples: As the post points out light can be slowed down; light is a physical force, as such, other forces can impact it (density and temperature of objects the light passes through); electricity or more properly, electromagntic currents can speed up radioactive decay as has been scientfically recorded (hat-tip Louis Hissink) in radioactive elements, chemical reactions can speed up or slow down, depending on various conditions; objects' kinetic energy (speed) can change.
But the "time" or duration these events happen over is constant.
What is the "true" variant for why these processes change over time?
Energy is either subtracted or added into a closed system.
Only Man's perception of time changes in the response to the change in intensity, speed, or quantity over a given duration.
(Perhaps, the key to why Einstein was in error is because he used "thought experiments" and because Man's preception of time changes, he projected Man's perception of time onto Nature.)
Time stands outside the mind of Man as an independent function of the Universe.
A "function" that has no force.
It appears to this writer, at base, that (where does the electrical energy "come from" that is added to the "system" in Plasma Cosmology) is the "unstated" objection to Plasma Cosmology by "big bang, black hole" astrophysicists.
Where does the electrical "dynamo" for the Universe originate? And the answer is: No one knows.
But from all scientific observation and measurement there does appear to be energy added into the Universe (system) because, otherwise, the system would seek and find electrical equilibrium and stability and wind down.
But, again scientific observations and measurements show there is a high degree of disequilibrium and instability (plasma is a state of high instability and disequilibrium, and that is why plasma is extremely difficult to model or put into mathematical formula) in the Universe. It is the "seeking" of equilibrium and stability that causes electrical discharges and "releases" energy into the system.
The mystery of the Universe coninues.
But "time" is no mystery.
Time is "duration" and is universally constant.
Time is the "unmoved" mover of the Universe.
What unit of measurement do you use to measure absolute duration?
OilIsMastery:
OilIsMastery asks: "What unit of measurement do you use to measure absolute duration?"
I don't.
First, a unit of measurement is a human construct and completely arbitrary. It can be any duration of time that is agreed to, whether a minute, or a "bable".
I never used the term "absolute duration."
In fact, I never used the word "absolute" at all.
OilIsMastery, what do you mean by "absolute duration"?
I focus on the words and ideas of "constant" and "duration".
I use the word "duration" to suggest any unit of time. Time is divided into durations. Also, to simply convey the idea that time doesn't speed up or slow down, it's constant. Forces act over a "duration".
But your question does allows me to expand:
How do we know time is constant?
The honest answer is we can't know with absolute certainty. As with all science, there is no "truth", only hypothesis or theory.
But here is my reasoning:
First, intuition (sure that's not reliable, but there it is); second, man measures time and regardless of what unit is decided on, time's duration is the same; three, things only change in the Universe if some force acts on it, Newton's law of inertia is a good example, so, since "time" neither acts on a force, nor a force acts on time, nothing forces time to change, it remains the same.
Time is constant.
Only Man's perception of time changes.
I hope that clarifies my meaning.
"First, a unit of measurement is a human construct and completely arbitrary."
Exactly. So is time unless you want to admit time cannot be measured in which case it has no place in physical science but only in ideal mathematics.
Kantians do not argue that motion and change are not constant or material, what we argue is that time is mathematically ideal and the condition of experience but not physically real or material.
Time, like a subducting plate, a Riemannian triangle, or a black hole, exists only in the minds of it's creators. Mathematics is not physics and thank God for that...=)
OilIsMastery:
I answered OilIsMastery's question: "First, a unit of measurement is a human construct and completely arbitrary."
And OilIsMastery in turn responded: "Exactly. So is time unless you want to admit time cannot be measured in which case it has no place in physical science but only in ideal mathematics."
I respectfully disagree. The length of time to be measured is arbitrary. A "bable" could be 15 seconds or 15 minutes, but time is real. As I stated in my original comment, time is a function of the Universe without force.
The names that Man gives to particular "durations" and the length of duration is arbitrary, but time is real.
Actions happen over time. Or in other words, actions happen over durations of time and those durations advance at a constant rate in the Universe.
OilIsMastery states:
"Kantians do not argue that motion and change are not constant or material, what we argue is that time is mathematically ideal and the condition of experience but not physically real or material."
OilIsMastery, now you have the experience of being an oil geologist, subductionist, or "big bang, black hole" astronimist.
"Kantians"?
"we argue"?
Sorry, haven't read much of Kant, but have read a sketch of his biography and "systems".
Kant was a pedantic fellow. Most of his work, as one title you list suggests, is metaphysics.
Metaphysics is not science.
Kant is wrong.
OilIsMastery states: "...but not physically real or material."
Time is real and it's material in the sense that science needs to account for time or "duration".
Time is essential to science.
I repeat, time is essential to observation and particularly measurement.
Go back to Hissink's statement:
"What we have thrown out is purely mathematical science with no connection to physical reality, and why we throw out Einstein's relativity theory - his initial error was to make time a physical entity - it isn't. Knock that assumption off its perch and the rest falls down."
The key to the statement is that time isn't a physical enity.
But time is a function of the universe.
If we agree on 15 minutes as a duration, that 15 minutes is real enough.
I'm sorry, OilIsMastery, you hold Kant in too high regard.
The issue is not whether time is real, but whether time is constant. Does it slow down, or does it speed up as it "interacts" with gravity.
OilIsMastery states: "Time...exists only in the minds of it's creators."
No.
As I stated in my orginial comment:
"Time stands outside the mind of Man as an independent function of the Universe.
A 'function' that has no force.
If Man did not exist, time would still exist.
If Man did not exist, chemical reactions would still happen over a "duration" of time.
I stand on that statement.
"Duration" is necessary to measurement in scientific observations. Reaction time is part of scientfic understanding. Physics also requires measurement of time to make sense of nature.
If your statement was true -- science would be impossible!
Here is an actual paradox: Time is not a force that interacts with other forces, but it is a function of the Universe. Scientific understanding is not possible without the function of time.
OilIsMastery how do you conduct science without the measurement of time?
Kant is leading you astray.
You'll have to give up that assumption:-)
OilIsMastery:
Please review your position on time.
OilIsMastery states: "Time...exists only in the minds of it's creators."
Or in other words, time is a figment of Man's imagination.
OilIsMastery, do you really believe time is a figment of Man's imagination?
What about before Man existed -- did the Universe advance over a "duration" independent of Man's existence?
I pegged this issue on my first comment: Kant wrongly concluded time as a function of the perception of Man.
Einstein wrongly concluded time as a "force" acted on by another force, namely gravity.
Rather, time is the "unmoved" mover of the Universe.
An indispensable function of the Universe that has no force.
Time is constant and Albert Einstein was wrong.
Yes, time is real.
So is a point or a line or a perfect circle.
"Sorry, haven't read much of Kant"
You need to read the Critique of Pure Reason and pay special attention to the fact that time and space are a priori. It will change your perception of the universe forever. Space and time are real in our minds like math but they are not physically material.
"Metpahysics is not science."
Neither is mathematics.
"Kant is wrong."
Not about space and time.
"Time is essential to science."
No. Time is essential to math.
"I repeat, time is essential to observation and particularly measurement."
Time is a condition of observation and measurement but absolute time cannot measured in physical actuality. You have already admitted as much when you said "a unit of measurement is a human construct and completely arbitrary."
"If Man did not exist, time would still exist."
Who would measure it's passing? God and the angels? And using what unit?
"OilIsMastery how do you conduct science without the measurement of time?"
How do you measure absolute time?
OilIsMastery:
You should question Kant's conception of time as being only a product of Man's imagination.
The units that Man uses to measure time are arbitrary. And the measurement of time is an activity of man. But the passage of time is not arbitrary or imaginary.
I can tell you unequivocally that time is indepensible to measurement in science.
In other words, for Man to understand the Universe, time as a function has to be incorporated into Man's understanding.
Indeed, if my hypothesis is right, that duration is a function of the Universe that has no force (neither acts on other "forces" nor do "forces" act on it), then Man's understanding of the Universe can never be complete without considering the function of time.
Which is confirmed by the necessity to consider time, "duration", when making scientific observations and measurements.
And while math should NEVER be the master, it is a valuble servant in the scientific discipline.
As Galileo said: "The language of Nature is mathematics.
I'm happy to try and answer your question about absolute time, but first I need an explanation of what you mean by "absolute time."
Perhaps, that is part of Kant's error. At this point without further explanation, absolute time is a non-sensical abstraction; a metaphyisical question for which there is no answer in the scientific realm of observation and measurement.
OilisMastery, do you dispute the passage of time in the Universe prior to Man'a existence?
Not the measurement, but the passage of time without measurement.
And is that passage of time a reality?
OilIsMastery states:
"Time is a condition of observation and measurement but absolute time cannot measured in physical actuality. You have already admitted as much when you said 'a unit of measurement is a human construct and completely arbitrary.'"
Let's focus on this sentence: "You have already admitted as much when you said 'a unit of measurement is a human construct and completely arbitrary.'"
OilIsMastery, perhaps, I poorly communicated my meaning.
The "units" man assigns to the passage of time are aribrary, that is to be distinguished from the passage of time, itself.
The two issues are seperate and distinct issues and need to be considered seperately.
Beware, Kant was not a scientist, he was a philosopher. Kant worked from the general to the specific (I have previously addressed the danger in that approach).
Kant did speculate on physical phenomenon, but never did proceed in the Scientific Method of experiment in the laboratory, generating specific observations and measurements.
Kant's philosophy was based on general principles.
Kant's speculations on time are from a metaphysical perspective and not a scientific perspective.
Perhaps, you should turn this website into a metaphysical website instead of a scientific website:-)
Only kidding...
Anaconda,
In response to "You should question Kant's conception of time as being only a product of Man's imagination."
Believe me I have questioned the Critique of Pure Reason for the past 12 years but that's only because I've actually read it.
"And the measurement of time is an activity of man."
This is exactly Kant's point.
"But the passage of time is not arbitrary or imaginary."
You are confusing time with motion and change which are physical actualities.
"I can tell you unequivocally that time is indepensible to measurement in science.'
If I say, for example in biology, 'this tuatara is green,' where does time fit in to the science?
"In other words, for Man to understand the Universe, time as a function has to be incorporated into Man's understanding."
Exactly Kant's point.
You should question mathematics and a priori conditions of experience.
"...we are fundamentally inclined to claim that the falsest judgments (which include the synthetic judgments a priori) are the most indispensable for us; that without accepting the fictions of logic, without measuring reality against the purely invented world of the unconditional and self-identical, without a constant falsification of the world by means of numbers, man could not live..." -- Nietzsche
"Which is confirmed by the necessity to consider time, "duration", when making scientific observations and measurements."
Using what unit? You still haven't told me what unit you use to measure absolute time?
"And while math should NEVER be the master, it is a valuble servant in the scientific discipline."
By claiming time is physical and not mathematical you are making math the master.
"As Galileo said: 'The language of Nature is mathematics'."
I disagree. The language of man is mathematics. Nature doesn't speak.
"OilisMastery, do you dispute the passage of time in the Universe prior to Man's existence?"
No. I believe conscious beings (e.g. God, angels, and aliens) intuited time prior to man's existence. I'm not sure what units they use to measure absolute time though which is why I have asked you several times, what units are used to measure absolute mathematical time?
"The "units" man assigns to the passage of time are aribrary, that is to be distinguished from the passage of time, itself.
The two issues are seperate and distinct issues and need to be considered seperately."
If time cannot be measured in absolute units then what good is it?
"Beware, Kant was not a scientist, he was a philosopher. Kant did speculate on physical phenomenon, but never did proceed in the Scientific Method of experiment in the laboratory, generating specific observations and measurements.
Kant's philosophy was based on general principles.
Kant's speculations on time are from a metaphysical perspective and not a scientific perspective."
You are so wrong about this. You really need to stay away from Wikipedia or whoever taught you that nonsense. Kant was a scientist first and foremost.
"Kant pointed out in the middle of last [18th] century, what had not previously been discovered by mathematicians or physical astronomers, that the frictional resistance against tidal currents on the earth's surface must cause a diminution of the earth's rotational speed. This really great discovery in Natural Philosophy seems to have attracted little attention,--indeed to have passed quite unnoticed,--among mathematicians, and astronomers, and naturalists, until about 1840, when the doctrine of energy began to be taken to heart." -- Lord Kelvin, physicist, 1897
Werner Heisenberg was a German physicist who won the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in quantum theory.
"In the most general sense it is impossible to describe intuitively what happens between two consecutive observations. It is of course tempting to say that the electron must have been somewhere during the time between the two observations and that therefore it must have described some kind of orbit or path, even if it should be impossible to establish this path. This would be a reasonable argument in classical physics. But in quantum theory it would be a case of a misuse of language which … cannot be justified."
In other words, "the concept ‘happening’ [Geschehen] must be restricted to observation."
Clinton Joseph Davisson was an American physicist who won the 1937 Nobel Prize in Physics for his discovery of electron diffraction.
Davisson states in agreement with Kant that, "If nothing is observable, it is only proper to say that nothing is happening; the system is settled into a spaceless and timeless stationary state outside our intuitions."
"The elements of the physical reality cannot be determined by a priori philosophical considerations [i.e. Newton was wrong about 'absolute true mathematical time'], but must be found by an appeal to results of experiments and measurements." -- Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, 1935
What unit of measurement is that again? Days or seconds?
OillIsMastery:
On Kant, OilIsMastery, you are no better than the geologists or astronomers.
I'll tell you why: You read his metaphysics book: Critique of Pure Reason and became infatuated with Kant's reasoning. Okay, I get that. Same thing that happens with geologists and astronomers. But we ask them to reconsider their views based on new evidence and alternative interpretation of already existing evidence.
I'm asking you to do what this website does. Reconsider your opinion.
OilIsMastery presents my quote: "And the measurement of time is an activity of man."
And OilIsMastery responds: "This is exactly Kant's point."
No. Kant's point is that because time is only in the imagination of Man, all time is, is an "ideal"
Kant was an idealist.
Idealism is not part of the Scientific Method and that is why you are apparently having a hard time explaining "absolute time."
I've asked you twice to explain absolute time, the reason I've asked you to explain absolute time is because I don't know what you mean.
OilIsMastery presents my quote: "But the passage of time is not arbitrary or imaginary."
And OilIsMastery responds: "You are confusing time with motion and change which are physical actualities."
No, to the contrary.
We measure motion using time.
Speed is measured by multiplying distance by time, as in 50 miles per hour.
OilIsMastery states: "If I say, for example in biology, 'this tuatara is green,' where does time fit in to the science?
OilIsMastery -- that's a ilinformed comment.
Your comment is a description which is part of the scientific discipline, but doesn't cover all descriptions in the scientific discipline.
How fast does a chemical reaction take place? Speed is part of science, as I stated above time is part of how Man calculates speeed.
A chemical reaction rate over a specific time.
If Man had no conception of time, could we have ever computed the escape velocity of rockets to make it into Earth's orbit?
How long is the half-life of a radioactive element.
What is the speed of light in a vacuum? Again, distance over time is how Man figures the speed of light.
There are many scientific questions involving time.
How does Man make computer chips faster at processing information.
Bytes per second is a scientfic question.
I repeat again, pull out of this crash and burn dive, OilIsMastery.
Show me you are better than the oil geologists, geologists, and astronomers this website has been taking to task.
OilIsMastery presents my quote: ""In other words, for Man to understand the Universe, time as a function has to be incorporated into Man's understanding."
And responds: "Exactly Kant's point."
If in Kant's view, all man can understand is an idealized approximation of time because of Man's limited ability of perception. I might agree.
But if you maintain that time is a figment of Man's imagination, then you are flat-out wrong.
OilIsMastery states: "You should question mathematics and a priori conditions of experience."
Again, another ilinformed statement.
If you have been reading my comments, particularly in regards to my criticism of "big bang, black hole" theory, you would know that I have severly criticized mathematics divorced from reality.
But mathematics properly subjugated to observation and measurement is a valuble tool of science.
It seems, OilIsMastery, you want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Nietzsche has his moments, that quote is not one of them -- remember, Nietzche ended up a broken down nut case at the end of his life.
OilIsMastery states: "Using what unit? You still haven't told me what unit you use to measure absolute time?"
As I've stated several times, the "unit" is arbitrary. Whether it's minutes or bables. Again, please explain what YOU mean by absolute time?
Is Navigation scientific? Because time is crucial to navigation.
As a matter of fact that's how mintutes and seconds were developed, as aids to navigation on the open ocean.
OilIsMastery states: "By claiming time is physical and not mathematical you are making math the master."
Please don't misquote me, OilIsMastery. I have specifically stated that time IS NOT PHYSICAL.
But time is a reality. It is a function of the Universe without force.
OilisMastery presents my quote: "As Galileo said: 'The language of Nature is mathematics'."
OilIsMastery responds: "I disagree. The language of man is mathematics. Nature doesn't speak."
Obviously, Galileo meant the quote as a metaphor.
Of course, "Nature doesn't speak," in the literal sense. What Galileo meant is that Man understands Nature through mathematical relationships expressed in the various expressions of Nature's force, like E=MC^2.
OilIsMastery states: "If time cannot be measured in absolute units then what good is it?"
Well, it's gotten us this far (Man on the Moon and all that).
I think you've sprung a gasket on Kant's metaphysical abstraction.
OilIsMastery, just look at Kant's work -- most of it is metaphyscal.
Davisson may have won the 1937 Nobel Prize in physics, but the statement you quote is nonsensical in my opinion.
And more important you constradict yourself.
Quantum physics is highly mathematical, yet you spend most of this comment saying how mathematics is worthless.
OilIsMastery states: "The elements of the physical reality cannot be determined by a priori philosophical considerations, but must be found by an appeal to results of experiments and measurements." -- Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, 1935"
I agree, but time is a function of the Universe so must be considered in experiments and measurements were appropriate (not all scientfic determinations involve the function of time).
If you can't explain "absolute time" then doesn't that demonstrate that the phrase is a metaphyscical abstraction that has no meaning other than an empty term of attempted disputation?
OilIsMastery, I'm asking you to explain "absolute time" and if you can't explain it, how do you expect me to explain it?
Sounds like a red herring to me.
"You read his metaphysics book: Critique of Pure Reason and became infatuated with Kant's reasoning. Okay, I get that."
No. You don't get it. if you got it you would be agreeing with me. What Kant discovered is that time is not "absolute, true, and mathematical" as claimed by Newton because the day is lengthening as the rotation of the Earth is retarded. That is what lead him to write his Critique of Pure Reason. Because mathematics (Newton) was wrong about time being "absolute, true, and mathematical."
"Kant was an idealist."
There is no possible way you can read the Critique of Pure Reason and believe that.
The whole point of the book is transcendental idealism (space, time, and numbers) IN ACCORDANCE WITH material realism. NOT idealism.
The idealism that should be rejected is what is known as mathematical time (Newton). It cannot be measured in physical actuality because it doesn't exist in physical actuality.
"Idealism is not part of the Scientific Method and that is why you are apparently having a hard time explaining 'absolute time.'
I've asked you twice to explain absolute time, the reason I've asked you to explain absolute time is because I don't know what you mean."
I'm not the one who believes in absolute time. You and Newton are.
"If Man had no conception of time, could we have ever computed the escape velocity of rockets to make it into Earth's orbit?"
Of course man has a conception of time, we just can't hold time in our hands, i.e. it is mathematical and not physical/material.
Time is mathematically real in our minds but not physically materially real in the universe.
You are confusing physical motion and change with mathematical time.
"What is the speed of light in a vacuum?"
Anything you want it to be. Mathematical vacuum space does not exist in physical material reality since space is full of plasma.
"the 'unit' is arbitrary."
Exactly Kant's point. It's not absolute if it's arbitrary!
"OilIsMastery, I'm asking you to explain 'absolute time' and if you can't explain it, how do you expect me to explain it?"
Funny how you don't ask Newton or yourself to explain it. "Absolute, true, and mathematical time." Those are Newton's words, not mine. Ask him to explain it. I'd rather discuss pink unicorns because they have a more likely chance of being physically real and not some mathematical imagination with no specific units of measurement.
One more comment.
Newton's book is called "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" not "Empirical Principles of Physical Science."
Nowhere in that title does it say anything about materialism, observation, empiricism, experience, physics, physical science, or the scientific method.
To understand time, it is necessary to understand its components.
Time is energy, with the same energy density as solid mass. Time is a function of energy, and so identical to energy.
Energy in three-dimensional space is understood as mass, energy in the fourth Minkowski axis, as time, this means:
Each spatial dimension is held within the next, in this setting, the three ordinary dimensions of space are combined within a single dimension of time, to form a four-dimensional manifold, representing a space-time reality.
So multiplying an amount of time (t) (in seconds) by the speed of light squared (c²) gives the decompressed spatial energy (E) of transduced (changing one energy pattern to a different energy pattern) time (t), in short E = tc².
Mass is just a special form of energy. Mass is energy, however only time mass exists, so the concept of mass as perceived as existing independently of time as a physical object is false.
Energy can move across the boundary of three-dimensional space, into the other spatial dimensions, referred to as an open system, in contrast to a closed system(not a single, closed energy system exists within our entire universe), which would isolate energy within three-dimensional space. So all energy circulations are facilitated through the fourth-dimensional manifold of time.
Negentropy, states that the natural system is self-ordering (i.e., freely receiving energy from the active environment), while entropy, is a measure of disorder in a system (i.e., freely giving energy to the active environment) both these states work in balance.
So accompanying entropy within three-dimensional space is the Negentropy of time energy, in the time envelope of three-dimensional space.
And accompanying Negentropy within three-dimensional space is the entropy of the time energy, in the time envelope of three-dimensional space.
The system functions through the broken symmetry of opposites, the poles of a magnet or a dipole, it’s the point of union that allows the energy of time(released from the virtual, into the physical) to pour out at the speed of light, expanding into infinity.
The entire universe functions on the conversion of energy, that being the transformation of the frequency of the energy, time energy is virtual, meaning we cannot observe it as it is held within the manifold of the fourth dimension.
The totality of photons(both virtual and observable) is the connection between all four dimensional planes, and so its interactions with mass creates that masses motion through time, this is why the photon is neither a wave nor a particle, it is within the two planes, both three dimensional space and the manifold of time.
Charge is the continuously active entity, which performs the processes of energy transduction between the time manifold and three-dimensional space. An example:
A Star is a vast dipole, which extracts transduced electromagnetic energy(virtual) from the time manifold and pours it out in all directions at the speed of light, without ceasing, this means a star pours out time-polarised electromagnetic waves(virtual), this applies an electric charge to the gas (ionising the hydrogen), generating a vast plasma ball emitting photons(observable light) and heat, the dipole continues in a circulation as the longitudinally polarised electromagnetic wave or photon discharges into three dimensional space.
Plasmas vary according to temperature and density, and have characteristics that scale over many orders of magnitude, this means to create a star the density of the ionisation of the hydrogen would be enormous, above 10³³ charged particles per metered cubed. This range of ionisation density explains why for example Jupiter remains as a gas ball, as opposed to a plasma ball.
The visible Universe is 99.999% plasma. The Sun is about 100% plasma, as are all stars. Plasma makes up nearly 100% of the interplanetary, interstellar and intergalactic medium.
Electro luminescence of the plasma, by emitting photons(observable), both illuminates the universe and connects three-dimensional space to the time manifold, manifesting relativistic time.
Three dimensional space is a reality generated from the time manifold itself, the manner in the generation of this physical space means it will constantly expand this three dimensional universe at an ever accelerating rate. As every event, no matter how insignificant, is permanently stored within the electromagnetic field of the time manifold as quantum bits of information, these quibits of energy form braid like structures possessing length and width which twist together within the time manifold and expand the volume of the physical universe. This means the older the universe the greater its volume, being an ever greater amount of stored time events, as space expands it has more space to create events in time, this generates the acceleration.
The mass of the universe works in a similar way; this is quibits of energy (information) within three-dimensional space, which twist together to form particles, clockwise or anti-clockwise along their length to produce positive or negative charge.
So the time manifold is a natural quantum computer that uses inconceivable amounts of information to generate physical reality.
The emitted light energy in turn is absorbed by the nearby positive charge of mass, say, the planet earth for example, and retransduced into time-energy, and re-emitted back to the time manifold. This ongoing energy circulation is an example of a scalar potential, both being and doing, at every spatial point of itself, inducing vacuum polarisation (an example of polarisation would be opposite poles of a magnetic field).
There exist continual communication between particles which takes place in the time manifold, which holds this three dimensional universe, which holds all the particles of this physical reality.
Matter depend on knowledge, it needs a cosmological clock provided by the frequency of the electron waves, the waves also perform the role of communicating in addition to time, length and mass.
Every particle communicates its wave state with all other matter, so that energy exchange and the laws of physics are properties of the entire matter ensemble. The behaviour within matter arises from the fixed knowledge, from the source consciousness. Every element of this existence are interdependent, just as each cell of the human body is interdependent on every other cell, just as each element of an eco system is interdependent on every other element, a recurring pattern of nature.
There are two real and coexistent realities participating in the physical behaviour of matter. We see one reality as our familiar 3D environment, governed by the natural laws. The second reality is composed of energy so densely compressed it boggles the mind, this energy mass of unseen quantum waves which form the structure of the fundamental particles: electrons, protons, and neutrons, and also, all three dimensional space, and action, in truth, everything, emanates from the time manifold.
We cannot observe these waves of energy, although they fill the apparently empty space around us. We only know of their existence when two particles change their quantized wave states (energy patterns) in concert. For example, one particle in a star and the other in the retina of our eye. This exchange we call 'light'.
The energy of existence in all its many patterns and forms is of a single source, a conscious and infinite fountain of knowledge and imagination, without limit or constraint, as the understanding you have read expresses, only this conscious energy exists, nothing else, it guides and controls its energies, seemingly without effort.
This conscious energy is the concept and reality of Allah without reservation, beyond the manifold of time exists an additional seven dimensional realities, each a magnitude of infinities, existing outside of the time manifold, beyond that more exists as the energy created all this of itself, but Allah exists as infinite, limitless and unbounded, the adventure of existence is just beginning.
By Abdun Nur
OilIsMastery:
Any Ph.D. in Philosophy will tell you several things about Kant.
1. Kant was an Idealist (when philosophers talk about perception as opposed to reality, they are idealists, Plato was an idealist).
2. Kant was a metaphysicist, Critique of Pure Reason is a metaphysical treatise (yes, he engaged in some scientific thought, but his fame is as a metaphysical philosopher).
3. Kant held space to be as much a function of perception as time. But you never mentioned Kant's views on space because it didn't fit with YOUR theory.
4. Kant held that objects were also functions of perception, where does that fit in YOUR theory.
5. Kant's "perception" idealism was an effort to remind his readers that the "mind of Man" is a wonderous thing that takes perceptions and molds them into conceptions, which is where science and understanding of the Universe reside. Science is beyond simple perception, but resides at the higher level of cognitive conception, the organization and rationalization of physical perception.
When taken in that context, Kant was a significant contributor to Man's understanding of Man, if not his world.
If you want me to prove the above I will. Trust me, you don't (stop and take a deep breath).
sword_of_reason:
Creative, but highly speculative.
Number one rule of science: Don't go farther than you have to to explain a physical observation or phenomenon.
sword_of_reason, when you went into the fourth dimension, you went into non-scientific speculation that isn't based on observation or measurement.
Plasma Cosmology is good science because it relies on known scientific principles -- plasma physics. But fourth dimension and beyond is not good science, metaphysics, maybe, but science, no.
Stick to science and you'll do a whole lot better.
Keep faith and science seperated and you'll do better still.
Anaconda,
"Any Ph.D. in Philosophy will tell you several things about Kant."
Any PhD in Geology will tell you several things about fossil fuel and subduction.
1. Anyone who has never read the Critique of Pure Reason will claim Kant is an idealist because he spends the entire second half of the book refuting idealism and claiming he's not an idealist. Transcendental idealism in accordance with material realism is not Cartesian idealism.
2. In what way is the secular acceleration of the moon, the rotation of the Earth, and the lengthening of the day Metaphysics?
3. I agree with Kant that empty space is also mathematical and a priori because empirical space is filled with plasma. It fits with my theory so you are wrong again.
4. I suggest you actually read the Critique of Pure Reason.
OilIsMastery:
I'm sorry you continue on this path of yours.
The information I pass on to readers is from the following book:
The Story of Philosophy
The Lives and Opinions of the Greater Philosopers,
By Will Durant, Ph.D.
Published by Simon and Schuster, New York, 1926
The title of the chapter that discusses Kant is:
Immanuel Kant and German Idealism
Apparently, OilIsMastery you don't understand the difference between science and metaphysics. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is metaphysics. There are no experiments beyond "thought experiments" and philosophical reasoning.
As Durant concludes in part:
"And no: for without doubt, such spatial facts as the annual elliptical circuit of the sun by earth, though statable only by a mind, are independent of any perception whatever: the deep and dark blue ocean rolled on before Byron told it to, and after he had ceased to be."
Likewise: time as a sense of before and after, or a measurement of motion, is of course subjective and highly relative; but a tree will age, wither and decay whether or not the lapse of time is measured or perceived."
Durant continues:
"The truth is that Kant was too anxious to prove subjectivity of space , as a refuge from materialism; he feared the argument that if space is objective and universal, God must exist in space, and be therefore spatial and material. He might have been content with the critical idealism which shows that all reality is known to us primarily as our sensations and ideas. The old fox bit off more than he could chew."
Okay, OilIsMastery, all the world sees Kant as an idealist and primarily as a metaphysicist.
But you see your hero differently.
Fine, have it your way.
But that's a mighty small island you're on.
Enjoy.
Anaconda, if you want to persuade me you're going to have to quote Immanuel Kant's own words with regard to space and time and demonstrate exactly how they are wrong.
With respect to the small island comment:
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd." -- Bertrand Russell
If I were on a big island I would be worried.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." -- Mark Twain, author, 1904
OilIsMastery:
We'll have to agree to disagree. I've made my case in these comments. Now, it's up to the readers to decide with their own free will.
Perhaps, I got too far down in the weeds by getting into a back and forth with you.
The main point I wanted to make, and which got buried in the discussion was that Einstein's conception of time is relative and a function of gravity's supposed curvature of space.
I reject that idea. I note Nikola Tesla rejected Einstein's conception as well. That rejection is key to Plasma Cosmology and is part of the fundamental error in the gravitational model of astrophysics (the other being the strict reliance on the inherently weak force of gravity).
Gravity doesn't curve space and time isn't distorted.
I will say this, though: I agree with Kant more than you, OilisMastery, know.
OilIsMastery, you seem to think no one has considered philosophy besides yourself.
That is a mistake.
You seemed to overlook my statement:
Kant's "perception" idealism was an effort to remind his readers that the "mind of Man" is a wonderous thing that takes perceptions and molds them into conceptions, which is where science and understanding of the Universe reside. Science is beyond simple perception, but resides at the higher level of cognitive conception, the organization and rationalization of physical perception."
OilIsMastery, you reject the term idealism, seemingly because you view it as a putdown.
It's not, viewed in its proper context.
While I have no proof, one must remember that Kant's ideas, though dusty, today, had currency in the latter half of 19th century as Einstein was coming of age. I believe it's possible that along with other influences, Kant's conception of time and space influenced Einstein.
In my view that was a wrong turn which still dominates astrophysics, today.
Kant was right, Man's mind is a wonderous thing. Man's mind is key to scientfic understanding because Man has the gift of higher cognitive conception, the ability to organize and apply reason to physical perception.
I'm not going to read an 800 page tome of metaphysics to refute your view.
You are entitled your opinion, however I may disagree with it.
Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree on Kant.
For me, he is the only philosopher since Aristotle to know what he's talking about.
I reject the term idealism because Kant rejected idealism. Transcendental idealism in accordance with material realism is not simply idealism.
Kant believes in a posteriori empirical observation and measurement, thus the critique of pure a priori reason.
"Kant's conception of time and space influenced Einstein."
Indeed. Einstein explicitly rejected the Kantian view that space and time are not things in themselves and he made spacetime into a "fabric" i.e. an object in itself.
In Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen's words there exists "a uniquely defined reality, which can be grasped in thought and yet is independent of thought."
For Kant and the Quantum Mechanics (Heisenberg, Bohr, Davisson) this cannot be justified. We have no access to the universe "independent of thought."
Accoding to Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen:
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity."
However according to Quantum Mechanics that is quite impossible since observations always influence the system.
Thus Quantum Mechanics proves Kant to be correct.
"If nothing is observable, it is only proper to say that nothing is happening; the system is settled into a spaceless and timeless stationary state outside our intuitions." -- Clinton Joseph Davisson, physicist, 1927
GOING DOWN A FRUITLESS ROAD
OilIsMastery:
My title, I regret applies to your position and my attempt to reason with you, but I feel compelled to do so, if not for myself or you, but for the readers of this website.
OilIsMastery states: "For me, he is the only philosopher since Aristotle to know what he's talking about."
This statement makes clear you, OilIsMastery, are doing the exact same thing, the gravitational model astrophysicists, are doing when they exhalt Einstein, to the point of overlooking physical observations and measurements contradicting their theory.
"...the only philosopher..."???
OilIsMastery states: "I reject the term idealism because Kant rejected idealism. Transcendental idealism in accordance with material realism is not simply idealism."
OilIsMastery, you read Kant when you were how old?
OilIsMastery, you have to consider that Kant is classed as an Idealist, by those familiar with the study of philosophy, yet you alone consider him not an idealist.
Yet, you, yourself use the term, "Transcendental idealism," in describing his work.
OilIsMastery states: "For Kant and the Quantum Mechanics (Heisenberg, Bohr, Davisson) this cannot be justified. We have no access to the universe "independent of thought."
It is true, Man has no acces to the universe 'independent of thought.'
But that does not mean the Universe has no existence independent of Man's thought.
The Universe would have existence even if Man never existed, as indeed, it did until Man evolved on planet Earth.
OilisMastery states:
"However according to Quantum Mechanics that is quite impossible since observations always influence the system.
Thus Quantum Mechanics proves Kant to be correct.
"If nothing is observable, it is only proper to say that nothing is happening; the system is settled into a spaceless and timeless stationary state outside our intuitions." -- Clinton Joseph Davisson, physicist, 1927
OilIsMastery, see, you contradict yourself by associating with the statement: "However according to Quantum Mechanics that is quite impossible since observations always influence the system."
You contradict yourself by "allowing" a statement based on abstract mathematical equations that is very problematical: "[O]bservations always influence the system."
This is a philosophical conclusion based on abstract mathematics.
The utility of Quantum Mechanics theory is not in the above statement, the utility of Quantum Mechanics is in making predictions of location for objects that Man could not perceive, based on probability reduced to the "probability being the same as if the observation was, in fact, being made", thus allowing for measurment were no direct measurement is possible.
OilIsMastery quotes: ""If nothing is observable, it is only proper to say that nothing is happening; the system is settled into a spaceless and timeless stationary state outside our intuitions." -- Clinton Joseph Davisson, physicist, 1927"
This statement only makes sense if you put "abstract mathematical formula" above the reality that existence is independent of Man's thought.
I will say again:
"It is true, Man has no acces to the universe 'independent of thought.'
But that does not mean the Universe has no existence independent of Man's thought."
And that is why Kant is classified as an Idealist: Philosophers that rely on Man's perception and conception in conjunction to define the world and prove it's existence constitute "Idealism" in the classification of philosophic thought.
WHY EINSTEIN IS WRONG?
By Menahem Simhony
Retired Associate Professor, Physics Section 5, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
THE “MASS - ENERGY EQUIVALENCE” DECEPTION
THE SECOND GREATEST IN 20-TH CENTURY PHYSICS
The Improper Interpretation of E=mc2. Einstein derived this formula in 1905 from the Maxwell Equations, in a calculation of the radiation energy of an electron, moving in the electromagnetic (EM) field. Unfortunately, in introducing the mathematical ideology of relativity he smashed all rules and laws of the natural science of physics that were standing in his way.
a. Einstein illegally generalized the applicability of the formulae, derived for electrons, to “ponderable masses as well”, i.e., to atomic bodies, without any proof. Such auto-generalizations are legal in mathematics, but not in physics or in any other natural science, the objects of which do exist in nature. He explained his generalization by “…because a ponderable material point can be made into an electron by the addition of an electric charge, no matter how small.” Well, it cannot. No piece of atomic matter, not even a single atom, can be made into an electron. Einstein’s statement wasn’t good in 1905, and by 1935 it already was an obvious nonsense. Nevertheless, it was never corrected, and the illegal generalization is still used even in the most serious literature.
b. Einstein equated the radiation energy with any other energy, by saying: “The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so…” However, different kinds of energy are not equivalent to one another; some kinds are “more equal”. Thus, only a small part of thermal energy can be converted into mechanical energy. The energy of electric currents is most versatile, but only a small part of it can be converted into radiation energy, the “most equal” kind. By denying the difference between kinds of energy, Einstein played on the common misunderstanding of energy conservation. This law states that if and when one kind of energy is converted into another kind, then the converted amounts of energy are equal. Different kinds of energy are not equal, not replaceable.
c. Probably the worst Einstein did here to the natural science of physics is that he misinterpreted the E=mc2 formula to say that it expresses the equivalence of mass and energy. By this statement he discarded at one stroke the Law of Mass Conservation, always considered as “the most elaborately proven law of physics and chemistry”.
Unfortunately, Einstein the mathematician and mathematics tutor did not realize that equations contain amounts only, and can thus equate amounts only. Equations cannot equate kinds of a physical magnitude nor physical magnitudes as such, simply because equations do not contain them. Hence, an equation cannot replace mass by energy, nor any physical magnitude by another one. Presentation of E=mc2 as a mass-energy equivalence is thus improper. As wrong as would be such a presentation of the E=mv2/2 equation for the kinetic energy of a body.
The truth is that in the E=mc2 equation, m is the change in the amount of mass of electrons and other nuclear particles, present, appearing, and disappearing in space. This amount is equal to the amount of absorbed or emitted radiation energy E, divided by the squared velocity of light. The equality of these amounts, m=E/c2, does not mean that mass and energy are equivalent or replaceable. Similarly, if you buy a loaf of bread for a dollar bill, then these two items are not equivalent or replaceable, because you cannot make bread out of the bill, or a dollar bill out of the bread. Make, not buy, sell, exchange, or outspeculate!
Last but not least: the Maxwell Equations were derived for the Faraday-Maxwell EM field. This field, with all EM interactions and radiations, was carried by a material carrier, the ether. Faraday’s ether was an electrically neutral dielectric medium, of some discrete positively and negatively charged particles. Thus the Maxwell Equations with their c2 may be hiding our c2=Eb/mp formula, of which E=mc2 is a slight transform. Derivations based on Maxwell’s Equations may be “contaminated” by Faraday’s ether, thus incompatible with “empty space” orthodoxy.
sword_of_reason:
Excellent citation and quote!
OilIsMastery:
I owe you an apology.
Duality: The idea that Man's perception and conception and the thing in itself are seperate.
Here is Man with his perception and conception.
Here is existence.
The two are not the same.
Although, the challenge for Man is to bring his perception and conception as close as possible to the correct understanding of existence.
But Man's thought will always be seperate from the objects he contemplates, and that seperation leaves room for misunderstanding.
Apologize to Kant. I love you long time...lol.
Post a Comment