Oh golly! I hadn’t read the whole thread before I jumped in. It seems to have progressed to an assertion of the non-physicality of time.

Now, I ain’t gonna get embroiled in the vitriolic brouhaha, but being a feller who knows something about the issue, I thought it’d be fun to try my hand a ‘splaining a thing or two - especially to a skeptic.

1) Einstein didn’t talk about a general “flow” of universal time, he talked about simultaneous events and relative durations. He assumed a priori that time was an attribute of the physical world. In fact, the single most elegant notion of special relativity is that physical entities are always moving through space-time at the same “rate”. Whenever you change your motion through space, you give up some motion through time, to the point where if you’re moving nearly the speed of light, you’ve virtually stopped moving through time and are moving only through space. When you come to “rest” with regards to some arbitrary non-accelerating reference frame, your passage through time is maximized, and that through space is zero.

2) Many other scientific processes describe a reality that is highly predicated upon the notion of time and its passage. Radioactive decay, exponential growth, motion, entropy, dilution, impulse and thousands of other verified physical processes must use the concept of time in a quantified manner to make real, verifiable predictions. If time were not real in a physical sense (as opposed to the subjective sense), none of these predictions would be possible, much less shown to be accurate.

3) There are some who ponder the “real” existence of time, and wonder how much of our subjective notion of time differs from the physical reality of time. There are also questions about things “outside” of time (or spacetime), as well as parallel universes etc. For now, these fall more into the realm of ontological philosophy than the realm of verifiable science.

4) There remains the problem of “the arrow of time”. Most physical process described by the equations alluded to in #2 work perfectly well if time runs “backwards”. Thus, there’s a question about why time always seems to run forwards, even though physical laws don’t clearly stipulate its direction. Current mainstream thinking is that the arrow of time arises because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics combined with the fact that the universe started in a state of very low entropy. This sort of investigation also tends to become ontological and (for now) largely unverifiable by experiment.

conquer - If you have a better idea, you should really take the time to explain it to everybody in a way that shows how we might replace the notion of time in all our physics. I propose we can ignore subjective arguments about human perceptions of time in favor of more rigorous treatments of physical time (or, as it may be, its replacement). To paraphrase an old saying, “saying something 1000 times doesn’t make it true.” The nifty thing about science is it provides the language (mathematics) to say things precisely, and it requires ideas “put up or shut up” - i.e. that they lead to observable, verifiable physical outcomes. If instead you want to talk about pseudo-science, there are plenty of other forums where that would be met with less skepticism.

tscott - 08 November 2007 04:51 PM

Occam - 12 August 2007 02:05 PM

Nobody likes the idea of being wrong.

Not really true. Scientists may need a lot of evidence, but their motivation is to gain knowledge of the universe, and this often requires discarding what was formerly believed. So they like the idea of being wrong.

Occam

Nice thread! I just wanted to say that aeons ago I was absolutely convinced that quaterians were profoundly important to any unification of quantum mechanics and relativity. They’re inherently 4D, like spacetime, and they have strange commuation properties that easily replicate the distincly known categories of extant particles (e.g. quark-antiquark, three-quark, lepton, and force-mediating particles). I won’t go into details - mainly because I was wrong. Turns out quaternions are nearly appropriate, but not quite. It essentially comes down to the sign (+/-) of the terms necessary to create a consistent algebra vs the signs necessary to model space-time. Turns out, they don’t agree. Einstein and others went down this alley for a while and found a dead end. But, that didn’t keep ignorant me from getting excited about it.

So what’s my point? The point is I was actually HAPPY to learn I was wrong, since it meant I could go off and think about other, non-wrong things instead of wasting my time and energy. Now, since I’m a human critter, I have experienced many times when I’ve been ticked off at being wrong, and especially at having been “called on the carpet” for being wrong. I suspect scientists aren’t above such emotion. But, and here’s my point - as the topic in question becomes more amenable to objective substantiation vs. subjective opinion, I believe it becomes easier to clearly recognize those possessed of wrong notions. In cases where “those” are one’s self, it becomes foolish to hang onto bad ideas. To be able to let go of incorrect ideas is, I believe, a sign of emotional ane intellectual maturity. However, we shouldn’t presume that most (or many) people have such maturity.

This leads to thoughts about cognative dissonance and the immunity of the untrained and emotionally biased mind to facts, but that’s a whole other ball of worms.

It appears that you are not famous as Hawking and that you are not receiving your salary thanks to government grants as many relativists do. So, you are “free” to fell happy finding some of your scientific thoughts as wrong.

The scenario changes if you are famous and are receiving funds to continue with your research.

You will find yourself between the line of being honest and tell the rest that your scientific approach is wrong and lose the grants destined for such purpose, plus you must have to respond to the media about it, and plus, you must be strong to hold the curses from others who were also receiving salaries like you because the wrong scientific approach.

This is a case between honesty and special interest.

Of course, we are witnessing that special interests are ruling in some scientific places while honesty is completely ignored.

tscott - 08 November 2007 08:34 PM

Oh golly! I hadn’t read the whole thread before I jumped in. It seems to have progressed to an assertion of the non-physicality of time.

Now, I ain’t gonna get embroiled in the vitriolic brouhaha, but being a feller who knows something about the issue, I thought it’d be fun to try my hand a ‘splaining a thing or two - especially to a skeptic.

1) Einstein didn’t talk about a general “flow” of universal time, he talked about simultaneous events and relative durations. He assumed a priori that time was an attribute of the physical world. In fact, the single most elegant notion of special relativity is that physical entities are always moving through space-time at the same “rate”. Whenever you change your motion through space, you give up some motion through time, to the point where if you’re moving nearly the speed of light, you’ve virtually stopped moving through time and are moving only through space. When you come to “rest” with regards to some arbitrary non-accelerating reference frame, your passage through time is maximized, and that through space is zero.

Nice bubbling but such ideas cannot be proved experimentally as true.

You already have jumped to the conclusion of an existence of “space-time” without checking first if time is physically existent.

If you want to validate Einstein’s ideas you must start first with the validation of the primary factors which play in his theories.

To say “an attribute” of the physical world. explain what exactly you are talking about. Is this a consequence of something? Is this consequence physically real? Is it a quality that can be testable through the scientific method? lets answer these questions after the next quote.

tscott - 08 November 2007 08:34 PM

2) Many other scientific processes describe a reality that is highly predicated upon the notion of time and its passage. Radioactive decay, exponential growth, motion, entropy, dilution, impulse and thousands of other verified physical processes must use the concept of time in a quantified manner to make real, verifiable predictions. If time were not real in a physical sense (as opposed to the subjective sense), none of these predictions would be possible, much less shown to be accurate.

So, weight is real. Sure, right. Lenght is also physically real. Sure, right. Volume is also physically real. Sure, right.

Oh, I got it, these are also attributes. But it happens that as much as I eat I can prove scientifically that “my weight increases” and “my volume” expands, but it is “me” the one who is changing, while the attributes “weight and volume” still are the same.

So, the changes happen on me and not so in the attributes weight and volume.

Saying it in an analogy you find out that Einstein implied that “the attribute lenght” will dilate if you pull a rubber band, and that the rubber band won’t feel at all that change because to the rubber band no changes will be perceived by any means. However, what is going on in reality is that the “rubber band’s lenght” (the physical body) is showing an additional measurement. Lets say that you are the rubber band and that if your extremities are pulled...for sure you will feel it..

How long it will take for you and others to finally recognize that the atomic clocks are the ones affected by the changes in their environment instead of wrongly think that the clocks are unaffected because the affected one is the attribute time?

tscott - 08 November 2007 08:34 PM

3) There are some who ponder the “real” existence of time, and wonder how much of our subjective notion of time differs from the physical reality of time. There are also questions about things “outside” of time (or spacetime), as well as parallel universes etc. For now, these fall more into the realm of ontological philosophy than the realm of verifiable science.

Of course, and with such ontological philosophy the theories of Relativity are included. Without doubts, Relativity is not science.

tscott - 08 November 2007 08:34 PM

4) There remains the problem of “the arrow of time”. Most physical process described by the equations alluded to in #2 work perfectly well if time runs “backwards”. Thus, there’s a question about why time always seems to run forwards, even though physical laws don’t clearly stipulate its direction. Current mainstream thinking is that the arrow of time arises because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics combined with the fact that the universe started in a state of very low entropy. This sort of investigation also tends to become ontological and (for now) largely unverifiable by experiment.

Again, if time doesn’t flow the consequence is that time also doesn’t have a directional arrow. Simple.

Now, you pointed that “(for now)” the experiments are largely unverifiable. This is the point to discuss.

Say, the religious dudes argue that the existence of God (for now) is largely unverifiable by experiment.

What now? Do we must include the existence of God as science because some dudes have hope that “one day in the future” some generation with better technology will finally prove experimentally the existence of God?

Come on. Such are no more than dumb assumptions. You simply cannot accept a theory by assumptions, you must have before anything a factual base foundation....and Relativity lacks of it.

In short words: “[future experiments will prove correct this and that] my butt! Prove it now. Otherwise, whatever you say definitively is not science.”

tscott - 08 November 2007 08:34 PM

conquer - If you have a better idea, you should really take the time to explain it to everybody in a way that shows how we might replace the notion of time in all our physics. I propose we can ignore subjective arguments about human perceptions of time in favor of more rigorous treatments of physical time (or, as it may be, its replacement). To paraphrase an old saying, “saying something 1000 times doesn’t make it true.” The nifty thing about science is it provides the language (mathematics) to say things precisely, and it requires ideas “put up or shut up” - i.e. that they lead to observable, verifiable physical outcomes. If instead you want to talk about pseudo-science, there are plenty of other forums where that would be met with less skepticism.

Of course I do.

First is to define what we can define. For example, Einstein, Hawking, and several others have written several books about time dilatation but no one of them have defined it by any means. How this happened? Who knows, but for sure they do ignore it.

So, if science is based in experimental data, the first step is to define the several aspects and things which will be involved around.

I read in Wikipedia their definition of time, but such definition takes us nowhere because lacks of scientific support. To define time you must provide more verifiable information than “quantities”.

Lets go to facts.

How the idea of time came out in the first place? If time cannot be physically perceived by the ancients, how they invented such word? What was the motive to create such approach?

Lets see. Primitive people saw that the Sun appeared and disappeared at regular intervals. The same with the Moon. So, they used the Sun as a measurement. They said, “it will take me two appearances of the Sun to reach the next mountain”.

See? They decided to call such reapearances of the Sun as “a day”. You have here the first measurement of time obtained by comparing the position of the primitive man in relation with the apparent motion of the Sun.

This is how the concept of time was born. Even the religious book the Bible mentions it by calling day to the darkness and light intervals.

Other writings like the dialogues of Plato also say it, as using the celestial bodies to obtain the measurements of time.

It happens that, who knows how, some guys started to think that time “flows” because the common expression “days passing by” creates the illusion that time itself moves around.

However, doing an analysis of their claims, it is understood that they indeed were victims of the illusions created by the motion of physical things.

You won’t say that such primitive people were capable to detect a physical passage of time with their primitive technology, even today such is a waste, no one can perceive physically such imaginary passage of time.

Then, books of physics must start with this beginning: the invention of the measurement called time.

It started by using the day as the primary measurement, later the interval called day was divided by 24 to obtain hours, and so for.

Simple principles.

Now well, with this historical background which can be verified by reading old manuscripts saying about traveling taking “two days of walking” or “three days of riding camels” , the concept or definition of time can be made.

You use a regular motion as your standar measurement (day) and you compare it with your motion or position on earth, and you can conclude that “time is the data of reference obtained by comparing the motion of things.”

I invite you to disprove scientifically this definition. I can tell you that this definition applies to all the methods and devices used to obtain the data called time. No exceptions.

So, by having that time is experimentally no more than a meassure, the next step is to verify that all the current theories of science must be updated to it.

No promises that one day time will be detected by some device or similar bubblings can be accepted. Science works day by day and no foolish dream by foolish dream.

The ascent of science has been fulfilled only after the technology allowed us to physically perceive or invent something new. Not before. A typical example is the stories of Verne who foresaw something similar to what we call the TV. It took decades to invent something like to what was mentioned in the fiction novel. But, because the novel said it long ago, the people of Verne’s years used his ideas as “science”? By no means.

The same as well, is Verne considered today as the “father of the TV”? Of course no.

So, science only grows up when the ideas are validated with experimental data or with facts.

Then, we cannot accept Relativity as science because time must be proved it as flowing or moving first in order to obtain its motion and compare it after a body is moving fast. You must have to have both status of the physical perception of time.

Lets see what is going on when you use a clock, the clock is a machine which works excatly the same way of the old clockwork toys. Clocks are calibrated to a specific function of doing tic tic tic. There are several reasons why clocks malfunction. Even, a guy who works in NASA assumes as well that the acceleration of the satellites or airplanes can affect the internal work of the atomic clocks. He implies that reasons other than “time dilatation” might play the cause of such different data provided by those atomic clocks. I will look for his link in the web, I think it comes from NASA something.

Well, clocks do not measure any physical passage of time. You have nothing to measure it. How can you state without doubt that time dilates?

Simply it can’t be.

I know how painful is to discard so much paper work and men hours because they are working in an imaginary event which never happens.

But, the benefit of discarding those good for nothing theories is that science finally will be vindicated as a “serious” branch of knowledge. Right now is the moment to change its current status of a ridiculous circus thanks to guys who insist to perpetuate Relativity as if this philosophy invented by Einstein was science.

The FDA approved the comsumption of meat from cloned animals.

One must wonder if they themselves have eaten such meat for at least ten years and have children between the years of experiment to check it.

Otherwise, how are they so sure that such a meat if safe for human comsumption?

In the 70’s a movie director made a documentary about the “wild” life in the US society, in these years of social revolution other partners appeared secretly in the life of Americans: the genetically modified food.

The second documentary made by Mr Vanderbes was called “This is America Part 2”.

In this film, one can see the appearance of the genetically modified chicken R27 which can grow so fast that it would take days and no weeks to be ready to be killed and sent it to the stores.

The fast food industry built great chicken manufacturers (they were not farms) of miles of distance for their chicken.

These chicken had atrophied legs and the feathers were easy to pull out, and...their diet was 65% its own doo doo (processed in a machine which mixed it with some additives) and 35% of regular food.

These chicken -according to the documentary- didn’t recive directly the Sun light in their lifetime. Plus, their meat was insipid, so “chicken flavor” had to be added!!!

Can you believe it? Adding chicken flavor to the chicken meat? Where the flavor came from? What chemicals were mixed to create such a seasoning?

How the FDA approved such a chicken for human comsumption? 

An real evidence for the fairy tale you offer, apart from the fact that some filmaker said so once? Any idea at all how we could possibly ever develop new food or medical technologies if they could only be established as reasonably safe by decades of use in FDA officials? Any reason to think cloned animal meat is an different from any other meat, besides your own irrational prejudice? Any flippin’ idea at all what you are talking about?

I know evidence is not of much interest to you, but for others’ benefit HERE is a starting point

While I would prefer that no one ate any meat, period…

Is eating cloned chickens any different from eating chickens who are twins?  (rhetorical question)

Personally, I look forward to the day when they can clone animal muscle tissue without having to clone an entire animal.  That way people will no longer need to torture and kill animals in order to satisfy their needless and decadent addictions to “meat.”

Yes, erasmus, FWIW I don’t eat meat because of a combination of ethical, environmental, and health concerns. But I also agree there is no logic the the fear associated w/ cloned meat, and no convincing evidence it’s different from any other meat.

First, no one will be eating the meat of a cloned animal because it’s far too expensive to clone one.  They will be used for breeding stock.  Since the proteins and other components of meats are denatured (rendered inactive) by the cooking process, and since our stomach and pancreatic enzymes nicely rip apart the molecules in food to simple amino acids, sugars, and DNA before they are absorbed through the intestinal walls so they can be rebuilt into human proteins, etc. I don’t think our bodies would even notice that the meat we were eating came from an animal with slightly different genetics.

Second, we have to decide where we draw the line as to what life is OK and what life is not OK to eat.  We eat any plant life, we don’t eat humans, and different levels break at mammals, warm blooded animals, any animal, any animal product (milk, eggs, etc.).  But what about animal cells.  Is there any difference between eating a chicken and a lump of muscle cells grown in an incubator, but from a chicken? 

Occam

mckenzievmd - 16 January 2008 11:54 AM

An real evidence for the fairy tale you offer, apart from the fact that some filmaker said so once? Any idea at all how we could possibly ever develop new food or medical technologies if they could only be established as reasonably safe by decades of use in FDA officials? Any reason to think cloned animal meat is an different from any other meat, besides your own irrational prejudice? Any flippin’ idea at all what you are talking about?

I know evidence is not of much interest to you, but for others’ benefit HERE is a starting point

Did you read my message?

I am talking about genetically modified food.

Anyway…

So, you want to ignore that cloned animals have a shorter life span.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/biology/pollack/w4065/client_edit/readings/science288_665.pdf

Or, you want to ignore that their metabolism is not “normal” and requires of more research.

“Q: Are clones dangerous to eat?

A: The FDA says all its research shows that you can’t tell a cloned animal from a conventionally bred one even down to the chemical level, so they’re not more dangerous than a normal cow, pig or goat. One French study found that some cloned cows reached puberty later and had slightly different fat metabolism than normal cattle and suggested a need for further research.”

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2006-12-28-cloned-qanda_x.htm

Why you and your entire family just don’t volunteer to eat that meat for the next ten years before is approved to human consumption after verifying “with facts” that such meat is all right?

Write to the FDA and give your name and enjoy the experiment. Lets see if family members of yours have no negative reactions at the end of those 10 years.

At least my request is based on the requirements of the scientific method which claims for experimental data.

Your response leans on an agreement to consume such a meat without knowing what the hell will happen with you in the next years by doing it.

Occam - 16 January 2008 06:55 PM

First, no one will be eating the meat of a cloned animal because it’s far too expensive to clone one.  They will be used for breeding stock.  Since the proteins and other components of meats are denatured (rendered inactive) by the cooking process, and since our stomach and pancreatic enzymes nicely rip apart the molecules in food to simple amino acids, sugars, and DNA before they are absorbed through the intestinal walls so they can be rebuilt into human proteins, etc. I don’t think our bodies would even notice that the meat we were eating came from an animal with slightly different genetics.

Second, we have to decide where we draw the line as to what life is OK and what life is not OK to eat.  We eat any plant life, we don’t eat humans, and different levels break at mammals, warm blooded animals, any animal, any animal product (milk, eggs, etc.).  But what about animal cells.  Is there any difference between eating a chicken and a lump of muscle cells grown in an incubator, but from a chicken? 

Occam

I guess that in any case, tests must be made first before giving any product as food or medicines to people. I have a nephew who had asthma when he was a child, In one trip to South America he had one of those asthma attacks and he was taken to the clinic. He received the inhalator and was sent back home. When they came back from the trip, their parents went from pharmacy to pharmacy looking for the inhalator. They didn’t find it, even when the one they had in their hands was made in US.

They went to their doctor and the doctor told them that the medicine wasn’t approved yet to be used in US. This inhalator was in a period of “testing” before was used in this country. A few more years later and the inhalator was in the shelves of the pharmacies in US.

And I wonder, if this medicine took so long for to be in the US market, why the genetically modified food which started -I think- by “improving” the corn, didn’t wait such period of years of testing fas well?

According to the records, The FDA approved the genetically modified corn as “safe for human consumption” after its testing in dogs, mice, monkeys and other animals in a period of “three months!”

Worst! In the 60’s people was eating already such a corn without even knowing it.

And this is a problem. The information of such genetically “manipulated” food should appear in the envelop of the product. People have the right to know what they are eating. Otherwise, in a near future you might be eating meat from rats because secretly the FDA might have approved it.

You can “mess” with clothing, the quality of a car, the features of the phones and more, but beware! you cannot mess with what you eat. Your health and the health of your descendants depend on it.

Do you realize that all of the food you eat has been genetically modified?  However, not in a laboratory, but by random mutations over generations.  Every time you eat a naval orange, you are eating something that didn’t exist a hundred years ago.  An agronomist found a tree that had mutated to not have any seeds in its fruit.  In the wild that would have ended when that tree died, but he grafted branches from that tree to others, and now there are thousands of orchards of that genetically modified fruit.  All of the animals and vegetables you eat can be traced back to precursor species that underwent a genetic mutation to cause the present ones.

And, I think the term, “cloning” is sort of inaccurate.  If one cloned a white rat that was homozygous, you would merely get another white rat.  The important thing is the introduction of genetics that the manufacturer decides has properties that will be profitable.  That is, like mutations, but directed.

Occam

erasmusinfinity - 16 January 2008 06:36 PM

While I would prefer that no one ate any meat, period…

Is eating cloned chickens any different from eating chickens who are twins?  (rhetorical question)

Personally, I look forward to the day when they can clone animal muscle tissue without having to clone an entire animal.  That way people will no longer need to torture and kill animals in order to satisfy their needless and decadent addictions to “meat.”

Many diseases caused as side effects by certain consumption of “approved medicines” have appeared years later, when a common symptom(s) guided us to find out the problem.

I started mentiioning the chicken R27, which in the 70’s was the genetically modified chicken sold in some fast food restaurants.

We know that humans who live a sedentary life start to suffer of several diseases. Well, look at the “factory” of these genetically modified chicken, they have atrophied legs and are in cages where they practically cannot move. (I will post some pictures taken from the documentary as “quotes”.)

A canal in front of them brings the food, So, with lights On all day and night these chicken won’t do more than eat and shit.

How it is expected to say that such chicken is a “healthy” animal? In the farm the chicken run to catch their food, they receive the Sun light, they eat herbs, corn, worms, and what they find affordable as food. I hear that farms are allowed to give them 25% of their own excrement as food because the chicken won’t assimilate 100% of what they eat and their excrement still have some nutrients.

But these factories producing millions of chicken won’t even give a healthy diet to their animals.

Is this genetically modified chicken really safe for human consumption?

Again, how the FDA approved such consumption?

Occam - 16 January 2008 07:41 PM

Do you realize that all of the food you eat has been genetically modified?  However, not in a laboratory, but by random mutations over generations.  Every time you eat a naval orange, you are eating something that didn’t exist a hundred years ago.  An agronomist found a tree that had mutated to not have any seeds in its fruit.  In the wild that would have ended when that tree died, but he grafted branches from that tree to others, and now there are thousands of orchards of that genetically modified fruit.  All of the animals and vegetables you eat can be traced back to precursor species that underwent a genetic mutation to cause the present ones.

And, I think the term, “cloning” is sort of inaccurate.  If one cloned a white rat that was homozygous, you would merely get another white rat.  The important thing is the introduction of genetics that the manufacturer decides has properties that will be profitable.  That is, like mutations, but directed.

Occam

I agree with you that genetical modification exists even in nature, but this is not the problem itself but how these animals were fed by the fast food companies in the 70’s. And maybe today their treatment is even worst.

About your example: look at the “arrow” of nature...that is simply “decay”.

Conquer,

If you think the only true test of the afety of cloned meat is to eat it for ten years, you don’t know bovine excrement about the scientific method (though you’ve already demonstrated that extensively elsewhere). And yes, I read your post about the GM chickens. You were clearly trying to make an association between GM and cloned meat with the general implication that both were unnatural and likey unsafe. you did exactly the same in your response, first pointing out that you hadn’t originally been talking about cloned animals and then going on to imply these were unsafe to eat anyway. I asked if you had any evidence for either contention or just some blurry pictures, but you ignored that part of my post, naturally.

Occam,
FWIW< I do think there’s a difference between eating a lump of meat grown in a vat and raising and then killing a chicken to eat it, even if the meat is itself the same. There are lots of interesting and complicated questions about what, as you put it, makes it ok to eat some life and not others. I think the ultimate decision, like all human ethics, is a bit arbitrary, but it can still be a rational and logical one. I have a fair familiarity with industrial agriculture from my veterinary training, and I think it is designed by economic need to produce a great deal of unecessary suffering, so I prefer to avoid it. That genrally includes meat and eggs and dairy (the latter two I eat if I can find a source of them whose treatment of the animals seems acceptable for me, though with dairy especially I am often unable to and will eat it anyway since I’m not zealous enough to manage a vegan lifestyle). But that’s just where I currently draw my lines, not necessarily an argument for lines anyone else should be drawing.