Here's a challenge.
I've been told a few times, by HR eggheads and not by people with science and engineering backgrounds, that my education was expired. Now I already know that this is a ploy to brush off the 50+ crowd and discourage them from applying for a job at their evil company.
If you can convince me that the things they taught me when I was studying physics and engineering are obsolete, that they are wrong; then I will concede that point. And it'll be a hard sell, because I still use my education to design electronic circuits and now speakers. And the equations still seem to be just as reliable as they were in 1975.
So give it your best shot. Convince me that frequency is not a scientific concept because time is illusory. Then explain why oscillations can actually destroy physical structures, like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. I can't wait.
I've been told a few times, by HR eggheads and not by people with science and engineering backgrounds, that my education was expired. Now I already know that this is a ploy to brush off the 50+ crowd and discourage them from applying for a job at their evil company.
If you can convince me that the things they taught me when I was studying physics and engineering are obsolete, that they are wrong; then I will concede that point. And it'll be a hard sell, because I still use my education to design electronic circuits and now speakers. And the equations still seem to be just as reliable as they were in 1975.
So give it your best shot. Convince me that frequency is not a scientific concept because time is illusory. Then explain why oscillations can actually destroy physical structures, like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. I can't wait.
I have no problem with the idea that time is completely different cosmologically and locally. Locally we use it as we always have to design amplifiers or bridges. Just like the idea of “putting Sir Isaac Newton in the driver’s seat” will get the astronauts back home from the moon. Inside the Re entry corridor. Time dilation didn’t matter much. Old-school physics may be accurate enough for practical purposes when everything involved is in a similar reference frame. So you can continue to use it. If time is the same illusion everywhere where it matters to a given system of equations you can still solve it in terms of t.
I understand and fully accept relativity. I learned relativity in school and have tried to keep up with new findings and whatnot.
Relativity does not make a case for time being illusory. It is a time domain concept itself!
Relativity does not make a case for time being illusory. It is a time domain concept itself!
You have previously asserted elsewhere that "time is a force generated by entropy".
In fact, if you were on Mastermind, entropy would be your specialist subject! 😉
Let me take a look at what I learned in my high school physics class:
- Time is measured by motion and it also becomes evident through motion, e.g., the swinging of a pendulum.
- Even as a swinging pendulum loses energy, its time of swing remains constant.
- A force is that which causes an object to change its speed, direction, or shape.
- Energy is transferred when a force does work on an object by moving it some distance in the direction of the force.
Last edited:
How do you know time is measured by motion if it’s an illusion Galu?
Perhaps ‘force’ is the wrong word, so let’s call it a by-product of energy dissipation.
If something moves a force must have been involved and energy must have been dissipated in getting the object to move , yes?
Perhaps ‘force’ is the wrong word, so let’s call it a by-product of energy dissipation.
If something moves a force must have been involved and energy must have been dissipated in getting the object to move , yes?
But I did not say that time is an illusion. I simply quoted Einstein and stated the ramifications of his theory of relativity.
To start an object moving requires the transfer of energy via the action of a force - surely no mystery about that?
When a force does work against another force, energy is converted from one form to another.
For example, if you do work lifting an object at steady speed against gravity, the chemical energy in your food is converted into gravitational potential energy.
I don't see how time comes into this other than the longer the action of the force, the greater the amount of energy converted.
I don't see how time is a by-product of energy dissipation. It is time that determines the amount of energy converted or transferred.
The Peters projection below is more accurate in conveying relative size of the continents although it is not accurate wrt shape
There's an interesting comparison between the Peters projection and the Mercator projection here:
https://www.thoughtco.com/peters-projection-and-the-mercator-map-4068412
Both are conformal cylindrical projections.
Wiki explains it all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_map_projection
Q = C x V
If you remove one electron, V decreases.
If you add one electron, V increases.
No need for derivatives, there's nothing in between.
My question to you about the illusory nature of time was rhetorical - I’m no saying that is what you said. I’m simply asking, if as many TP‘s say (eg Brian Greene has said it as well) time is an illusion, how can you then use it as a fundamental measurement yardstick in physics? How can it be an illusion wrt the question I posed in post #2075? I would argue there is a past, present and an as yet unknown future (accept for things that can be predicted by science eg the orbital position of Mars in 3 weeks) precisely because time is not an illusion but is something that is created through energy expenditure.
As to the F=ma point you raise, this is what I am thinking:-
Using c as our standard ruler, every single object in the universe has a time relationship to every single other object. If you exert a force on any object, you have to invoke some sort of change while that force is underway. We look at this as a force being applied over a time period. But, in doing so, what we are doing is changing the time relationship of the object that is having a force exerted on it wrt everything else in the universe. This is over an above the changing time relationships that exist between objects moving through space subsequent to the force being removed.
I am simply hypothesizing that when an accelerating force is applied, through the energy used, time is created. If we sum up all of the objects that have accelerating forces applied to them (and there are as you note many forms of energy) the net result will be the creation of time. Since time and space are flip sides of the same coin per Einstein, when we look out into the cosmos, we see a rapidly expanding universe - but what we are really seeing is expanding time. This I hypothesise is dark energy. There are currenty dozens of theories as to what dark energy is and some have fallen quite flat - eg WIMPs which IIRC even had a satellite sent up to look for them and found nothing, or the recent paper from elsewhere referenced earlier in this thread where the authors think the expanding universe is an illusion - so I don’t feel particularly intimidated by some of this stuff when I talk about time the way I do. Nothing wrong with thinking about this stuff and postulating on what it is!
How does this relate to dark matter? AFAIK, the primary indicator of dark matter is the higher than expected orbital velocity of stars in the outer reaches of galaxies. Dark energy’s effects are generally not observable within gravitationally bound objects (see Ethan Slegal et al) but only between objects like galaxy clusters that are not gravitationally bound. If the dark energy hypothesis above works, it may also explain dark matter as dark energy‘s manifestation within a group of gravitationally bound objects. If time is created when a force ( energy) is applied to an object, the time experienced by that object will slow wrt to objects around it because it will be moving faster than it was prior to the force being applied. If the object is gravitationally bound it will move faster than expected simply because time has slowed for it. An analogy would be a bucket of water. If you stir it vigorously with your hand, the water on the outer edge can’t spread out because it is constrained by the bucket, so it rotates faster than expected.
What do you think?
As to the F=ma point you raise, this is what I am thinking:-
Using c as our standard ruler, every single object in the universe has a time relationship to every single other object. If you exert a force on any object, you have to invoke some sort of change while that force is underway. We look at this as a force being applied over a time period. But, in doing so, what we are doing is changing the time relationship of the object that is having a force exerted on it wrt everything else in the universe. This is over an above the changing time relationships that exist between objects moving through space subsequent to the force being removed.
I am simply hypothesizing that when an accelerating force is applied, through the energy used, time is created. If we sum up all of the objects that have accelerating forces applied to them (and there are as you note many forms of energy) the net result will be the creation of time. Since time and space are flip sides of the same coin per Einstein, when we look out into the cosmos, we see a rapidly expanding universe - but what we are really seeing is expanding time. This I hypothesise is dark energy. There are currenty dozens of theories as to what dark energy is and some have fallen quite flat - eg WIMPs which IIRC even had a satellite sent up to look for them and found nothing, or the recent paper from elsewhere referenced earlier in this thread where the authors think the expanding universe is an illusion - so I don’t feel particularly intimidated by some of this stuff when I talk about time the way I do. Nothing wrong with thinking about this stuff and postulating on what it is!
How does this relate to dark matter? AFAIK, the primary indicator of dark matter is the higher than expected orbital velocity of stars in the outer reaches of galaxies. Dark energy’s effects are generally not observable within gravitationally bound objects (see Ethan Slegal et al) but only between objects like galaxy clusters that are not gravitationally bound. If the dark energy hypothesis above works, it may also explain dark matter as dark energy‘s manifestation within a group of gravitationally bound objects. If time is created when a force ( energy) is applied to an object, the time experienced by that object will slow wrt to objects around it because it will be moving faster than it was prior to the force being applied. If the object is gravitationally bound it will move faster than expected simply because time has slowed for it. An analogy would be a bucket of water. If you stir it vigorously with your hand, the water on the outer edge can’t spread out because it is constrained by the bucket, so it rotates faster than expected.
What do you think?
Last edited:
Rayma,
it=CV.
Further, if you remove an electron, there was a before and an after, so time indeed is still a consideration.
Working on your post. I didn't actually mention F=ma. That is a case of work being done against inertia to produce kinetic energy.
Africa has a surface area 0.8 times that of the Moon!
(30.3 million square kilometres compared to 37.9 million sq km.)
OK show me how to use a capacitor in a filter without considering any time domain parameters.
Capacitors are measured in Farads. "The capacitance of a capacitor is one farad when one coulomb of electricity changes the potential between the plates by one volt." Britannia One coulomb is "equal to the quantity of electricity conveyed in one SECOND by a current of one ampere." Oxford Languages
There's no avoiding time domain in physics.
But there's no t by stipulation.
And you can "remove" the electron however you want, but state #1 and state #2 both remain the same.
Perhaps I'll understand your 'time is created through energy' hypothesis before I kick the bucket. 🤓
Although I don't think your argument quite holds water!
We learned earlier, when looking at telescope liquid mirrors, that water swirling in a bucket will take on a parabolic shape.
Learning all the time! 😎
I've just discovered Newton's Bucket: https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Newton_bucket/
I've just discovered Newton's Bucket: https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Newton_bucket/
Use the Laplace transform to the complex frequency s domain. It's much easier than in the time domain.
And you can then calculate the transfer function just with Kirchhoff''s laws.
And then, if you want, even transfer the result back to the time domain with the inverse Laplace transform.
So you only need arithmetic instead of differential equations.
Last edited: