Question about Time - Science and Technology - HWzone Forums
adplus-dvertising
Skip to content
  • Create an account
  • About Us

    Hello Guest!

     
    Please note - in order to participate in our community, comment and open new discussions, you must join as a registered member.

    Our members enjoy many advantages, including the ability to participate in discussions, enjoy raffles and promotions for members of the site, and receive our weekly content directly by email.

    Do not like being harassed by email? You can register for the site but do not submit your registration to the weekly email updates.

A question about time


zorgi

Recommended Posts

I raise a problem that has already risen in various forms to this day, and certainly here as well, but with the addition of another question later:

The clock (which works well) shows the exact 8.00 time. Until 9.00 must pass exactly one hour, but before it passes the hour, it must first pass the first minute, and before that the first second, tenth, millisecond, one millionths of a second ....., so to infinity.

If so, can not the clock reach 9.00 if it has to go through endless time points earlier?

but Reality Proves that we do advance in time, and the clock does arrive after an hour to 9.00. Therefore the assumption that we pass through endless time points is erroneous.

Hence the opposite question: If there is no "end of time points" in one second, then this means that there is a finite number of time points that must pass in a second. Call it beats for that matter. So I can not know how many "beats" are in every second, but you have to assume that there are a finite X number of beats. Which means that we are actually "moving in time" in a fragmented fashion and we simply can not feel it.

what do you say?

Link to content
Share on other sites

  • תגובות 37
  • Opens on
  • Last comment

Prominent participants in the discussion

Prominent participants in the discussion

There are many things in nature that for thousands of years (or hundreds of years if they are relatively new ideas) were considered to be docks and today we know that they are not. If you want to pour any amount of water into a glass, you can not demand כל Quantity. The quantities you can get are in the jumps of one molecule. This is a very small size, but definitely measurable. In nuclear physics, if you have excitatory electrons that "fade" into the fundamental state and release energy in the process, the energy is also obtained by defined leaps rather than as a continuous sphere.

What I am trying to say is that someday, it will be discovered that time is also not continuous, and there is a minimum amount of time during which things can not change at all. In the meantime, this has not happened, and time is a completely continuous field in every respect known to science. Hence, everything that changes depends on time only Will also express a continuous area. The examples I brought earlier are not only time-dependent: also the pouring of water by dropping molecules into a cup and electron decay are statistical functions, and it is impossible to predict what will happen to an electron or molecule at the next moment. In contrast, the movement of a solid and rigid body under the influence of a constant force is a function of time only and is therefore continuous. Since time has no problem passing through infinite points from one moment to the next, so is pressure. There is no problem passing through infinite points from the bow to the target.

Link to content
Share on other sites

The differences are expressed in the form of calculation and the differences between the decimal and the simple, but the truth is that this paradox is meant to express the concept of depth in space, that is, the starting point between the definitions of two bodies and because this paradox exists in the mind of the person at its base it creates circular definitions of concepts And a solar system including an atomic structure etc.) that are in relation to each other in the time space their movement will be rotary or better rolling and so progresses but remains in place or illustrates the paradox advanced but not coming.

The truth is I do not really understand what I wrote here, someone can explain to me : smile1: (Meaning aside from the simple explanation that I am an idiot)

Link to content
Share on other sites

The truth is I do not really understand what I wrote here, someone can explain to me : smile1: (Meaning aside from the simple explanation that I am an idiot)

At least you understand what others feel when they read 90% of your messages .. ;)

Link to content
Share on other sites

Are you insulting me, only 90% of messages? I seem to be a fool / smarter than I even think of myself, I was sure it was more inclined towards the 95% and higher

But I guess I'm wrong - because you chose to treat only that and not what I wrote about the paradox.

Which shows you the importance of what I attribute to my thoughts about my thoughts so that you can only imagine what I think of the thoughts of others who think about what I think -

Link to content
Share on other sites

But I guess I'm wrong - because you chose to treat only that and not what I wrote about the paradox.

I did not notice that it is difficult to understand what your point is when you write a sentence with length 4 lines without commas 'date =' deviates from the subject, and speaks in terms that are probably understood only to you (= them 90% of your posts).

It does not mean you're wrong and it means that you [img ']http://forum.synergia.co.il/images/smilies/Recovered_Gif_905.GIF.

[/ Of top]

Link to content
Share on other sites

Forums And this technology is the place for digging

And only those who dig up will find gold

And those who do not find what floats

And obviously that does not mean I'm wrong, it means you do not understand

And that does not mean I'm smart

It means you : Silly:

But Wayne hopes that we can develop a fruitful discussion on the question of the mechanics of anarchic science

Link to content
Share on other sites

The differences are expressed in the form of calculation and the differences between the decimal and the simple, but the truth is that this paradox comes to express the concept of depth in space that is the point of launch between the definitions of two bodies and since this paradox is in the mind of the person that is based on it creates circular definitions of concepts

A paradox found in a person's mind will not necessarily be in his head alone, as it may not be the opposite. One of the most concrete experiments about time is that of a pair of scientists (in 1971) who took atomic clocks with exactly the same hour, one of the clocks was on the plane and the other remained on the ground. After the plane landed, the clock lagged behind that on the ground. Remember that before this experiment and others, this idea was only a theory in the mind of someone as a circular definition of concepts ...

There are many things in nature that for thousands of years (or hundreds of years if they are relatively new ideas) were considered to be docks and today we know that they are not. If you want to pour any amount of water into a glass, you can not demand כל Quantity. The quantities you can get are in the jumps of one molecule. This is a very small size, but definitely measurable. In nuclear physics, if you have excitatory electrons that "fade" into the fundamental state and release energy in the process, the energy is also obtained by defined leaps rather than as a continuous sphere.

What I am trying to say is that someday, it will be discovered that time is also not continuous, and there is a minimum amount of time during which things can not change at all. In the meantime, this has not happened, and time is a completely continuous field in every respect known to science. Hence, everything that changes depends on time only Will also express a continuous area. The examples I brought earlier are not only time-dependent: also the pouring of water by dropping molecules into a cup and electron decay are statistical functions, and it is impossible to predict what will happen to an electron or molecule at the next moment. In contrast, the movement of a solid and rigid body under the influence of a constant force is a function of time only and is therefore continuous. Since time has no problem passing through infinite points from one moment to the next, so is pressure. There is no problem passing through infinite points from the bow to the target.

Yes, but perhaps time does not pass only through points ... It's too bad Einstein can not come in and let us know what he thinks about it ...

Link to content
Share on other sites

What I am trying to say is that someday, it will be discovered that time is also not continuous, and there is a minimum amount of time during which things can not change at all. In the meantime, this has not happened, and time is a completely continuous field in every respect known to science. Hence, everything that changes depends on time only Will also express a continuous area. The examples I brought earlier are not only time-dependent: also the pouring of water by dropping molecules into a cup and electron decay are statistical functions, and it is impossible to predict what will happen to an electron or molecule at the next moment. In contrast, the movement of a solid and rigid body under the influence of a constant force is a function of time only and is therefore continuous. Since time has no problem passing through infinite points from one moment to the next, so is pressure. There is no problem passing through infinite points from the bow to the target.

In quantum physics, the shortest period of time that can be quantitatively is Planck's time, below which it is impossible to "measure" the time and any action that takes less than Planck's time is not really a beam.

Even if the calculation of Planck time now relative to artificial puzzles is not accurate, AKA Planck time is not really 10 minus 468 seconds (TT correct me if I'm wrong) Eventually we will reach a natural unit beyond which it is impossible to quantitate more and therefore can not be measured, And therefore any progress in time is according to Planck's time, or any other permanent set that will allow it. In the end everything in the universe comes to "natural" units, that is, they are units that come from the very existence of the universe, such as the velocity of light, gravitational permanence, etc.

On this, Planck units are based. The absolute absolute velocity in the universe is the velocity of light. If we take the unit of distance (for example, the plank distance is calculated according to Planck and the gravitational constant, but it is not fundamental, as long as one of the determinants can be reached) We get the smallest unit of time possible for a quantum and vice versa. Since nothing can move faster than the speed of light, the principle of this is true, even if the units themselves in translation are artificially inaccurate at the moment or manifestly true.

Link to content
Share on other sites

There is some problem with this theory of Planck's sizes. It may hold but it does not fit in with some new measurements from Abel. And if you take certain string theories, the whole thing goes to hell with the entire boat of tachyonim

Link to content
Share on other sites

So why I called "beats" has been there. Planck units, good to know.

There is some problem with this theory of Planck's sizes. It may hold but it does not fit in with some new measurements from Abel. And if you take certain string theories, the whole thing goes to hell with the entire boat of tachyonim

Once they can reconcile all existing theories, unite them, or refute some of them definitively, we will probably know the final answer to the creation of the universe and so forth.

I think that for this we need at least another 3-4 Einstein to continue each other's work for several generations, and even then we are not sure we will be able to get a final answer.

Link to content
Share on other sites

ארכיון

This discussion has been archived and new comments can not be added.


  • Latest news

  • Buzz-Zone: Everything hot on the net

×
  • Create new ...

At the top of the news:

new on the site