Atheism

[Abdul Fattah]

@Root
Can you have motion without time?

Why not? Can you proof That motion is dependant on time? Or can you answer the following paradox:

If spacetime is build up out of energy, either it exists infinitly in which case the present couldn't eb a universal now, but needs to be inserted at a certain time. Or the 4D spacetime was created/formed at some time. whatever created it must then be independant of that time, it's own cretaion. Now either way both posibilitys suggest a force from outside the dimension of time. Sp obviously some forces are independant of time. If these forces fall under your defenition of a "motion" I do not know. But stuuf is happening outside the parameters of time.

Point is and it is getting tiring;
You, nor anyone can currently prove (and by this I mean a majority scientific consensus) that time even exists in the first place.

Root, what are you saying? General relativity is proven in numerous ways. Perhaps part of it should be interpreted slightly difrent. But still , how can you deny all of this? These theorys are far more proven then common descent or abiogenesis. Theorys you swear by. And these theorys you do deny?

@Sabi

I really do not see why the existence of "objective" time should be important. All "time" is relative, even the Quran talks about this (A day in Allah's reckoning is a 1000 or even 50000 years by our reckoning).

What has any of this to do with the existence or non-existence of space?

Well the "secret beyond matter" has indeed lil' to do with this. Then again I didn't bring it up to proove your theorys. But rather for difrent points.

 

[root]

Why not? Can you proof That motion is dependant on time? Or can you answer the following paradox:

No, I could not prove it. My analogy is similar to yours in that neither of us can really prove it. me saying that it takes 23 seconds to travel between 2 points is simply a measure of unit just like time?

If spacetime is build up out of energy, either it exists infinitly in which case the present couldn't eb a universal now, but needs to be inserted at a certain time. Or the 4D spacetime was created/formed at some time. whatever created it must then be independant of that time,

Why must it be indapendent of time if time simply did not exist.

whatever created it must then be independant of that time, it's own cretaion. Now either way both posibilitys suggest a force from outside the dimension of time.

Or time simply did not exist at the point your referencing, which is at what point?

Sp obviously some forces are independant of time. If these forces fall under your defenition of a "motion" I do not know. But stuuf is happening outside the parameters of time.

What "stuff"! How do you know? why use an hypothosis of energy without matter?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

No, I could not prove it. My analogy is similar to yours in that neither of us can really prove it. me saying that it takes 23 seconds to travel between 2 points is simply a measure of unit just like time?

Ok how's this for a proof:

It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed. In particular, as the earth was moving through the ether on its orbit round the sun, the speed of light measured in the direction of the earth's motion through the ether (when we were moving toward the source of the light) should be higher than the speed of light at right angles to that motion (when we are not moving toward the source). In 1887Albert Michelson (who later became the first American to receive the Nobel Prize for physics) and Edward Morley carried out a very careful experiment at the Case School of Applied Science in Cleveland. They compared the speed of light in the direction of the earth's motion with that at right angles to the earth's motion. To their great surprise, they found they were exactly the same!
Source: stephen hawkin's "A brief history of time"
http://www.physics.metu.edu.tr/~fizikt/html/hawking/A_Brief_History_in_Time.html

Why must it be indapendent of time if time simply did not exist.

Well time did not exist prior to it's creation. Whatever created time exist even when there was no time. So whatever created it was undependant of time. And more importantly. There was a change! perhaps it isn't quite considerable as "motion". But something happened, a change. This change suddenly created time. If the cause of tme was itself dependant on time, it could never be manifested since it relies on time for any "change" to occur.

Or time simply did not exist at the point your referencing, which is at what point?

Ok we're getting somewhere. I assume You were hoping that I would answer: a point "before". And I assume that you intended to reply that before suggest the existance time again. But I'm sorry to let you down, my answer is:
A point not bound to the dimension of time. It's not before or simultanious, or after, it's simply "not bound" by that dimension. Try to approach dimensions as limitations. An object on a line can only go left and right because it is bound to that dimension. It needs space because it's bound to that dimension. simular, motions that are bound to teh dimension of time need time to occur. but if something is independant of both space and time, it wouldn't need them. What is real freedom? When we believe Allah (s.w.t.), the creator of time is without beginning, it's not because he is infinite in the dimension of time but simply because he is not bound to that dimension. When we say Allah (s.w.t.) is everywhere, that's not because Allah (s.w.t.) is stretched out infinitely over space, but because he is independent of, not confined by space.

What "stuff"! How do you know? why use an hypothosis of energy without matter?

The stuffs refers to either the source of time, should time be finit, or either the source of our notion of "present" when time is infinite. Which one of those two I believe is irrelevant. the point is that either way you need forces independant of time.

 

[root]

It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space.

Nowadays we use just this method to measure distances precisely, because we can measure time more accurately than length. In effect, the meter is defined to be the distance traveled by light in 0.000000003335640952 second, as measured by a cesium clock. (The reason for that particular number is that it corresponds to the historical definition of the meter – in terms of two marks on a particular platinum bar kept in Paris.) Equally, we can use a more convenient, new unit of length called a light-second. This is simply defined as the distance that light travels in one second. In the theory of relativity, we now define distance in terms of time and the speed of light, so it follows automatically that every observer will measure light to have the same speed (by definition, 1 meter per 0.000000003335640952 second). There is no need to introduce the idea of an ether, whose presence anyway cannot be detected, as the Michelson-Morley experiment showed. The theory of relativity does, however, force us to change fundamentally our ideas of space and time. We must accept that time is not completely separate from and independent of space, but is combined with it to form an object called space-time.

Nice try

Look Steve, spacetime. Not "time"!

Motion = Time.......

As I said all along.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Nice try
Look Steve, spacetime. Not "time"!

Come on Root.
Spacetime = space + time
Which part of that equation do you fail to understand?

Motion = Time.......
As I said all along.

Just repeating it long enough doesn't make it true.
here's motion:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(physics)

Motions that are bound to the dimension of time need time to occur.
That doesn't mean that motion equals time, that makes as much sense as saying:
"motion= space" since a motion bound to the dimension of space needs space to occur.

 

[root]

Come on Root.
Spacetime = space + time
Which part of that equation do you fail to understand?

I said right from the beginning I accept spacetime. Your looking to proove that time contributes to spatial dimension? That's trickier. But if time ran slower in your left leg than in your right leg, you'd be going round in circles!

 

[yasin]

we're getting slightly pedantic here

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I said right from the beginning I accept spacetime. Your looking to proove that time contributes to spatial dimension? That's trickier. But if time ran slower in your left leg than in your right leg, you'd be going round in circles!

No I did not look to proove that time contributes to the spatial dimension. I never said that. What I am saying instead is that time is a dimension. You accept spacetime wich basicly is what you get when the 3 spatial dimensions and the dimension of time are interwoven. But even though you accept spacetime you fail to knowledge time is a dimensions just because know I got (not so concealed) hidden agenda.

 

[root]

I reject the notion that time is a dimension in itself and asked you to prove it.

Alas, like I warned you the outcome was predictable, you failed. It's too early on mankinds path of scientific discovery. The only conselation I can offer is you "might" be right. Unfortunately you have an equal chance of being wrong.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I reject the notion that time is a dimension in itself and asked you to prove it.

Alas, like I warned you the outcome was predictable, you failed. It's too early on mankinds path of scientific discovery. The only conselation I can offer is you "might" be right. Unfortunately you have an equal chance of being wrong.

Maybe I cannot present you a quick one-post proof, but that's because when looking into matters that deep proofs aren't that simple. nevertheless the notion that time is a dimension is a part of general relativity and is accepted by almost every scientist on earth, if not in fact every scientist. And the most part of general relativity is proven. If you doubt about this being scientific, then you can doubt about any given other thing being scientific as well.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Sorry to interrupt here, but I'm pretty baffled by the direction this thread's taken. Steve, root, what does any of this discussion of time have to do with atheism?

Peace

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Greetings,

Sorry to interrupt here, but I'm pretty baffled by the direction this thread's taken. Steve, root, what does any of this discussion of time have to do with atheism?

Peace

Well it breaks down like this:

1. Einstein's relativity theory show us that time is a dimension. And suggests that eternalism (were both present, future and past are simultaniously existing) is the right aproach to time.

2. This suggests our notion of time is the result of an illusion. Like the motion in a movie is an illusion created by displaying pictures fast after one another, so should our notion of "time", as wel as our notion of "present" be the result of a movement through the dimension of time.

3. What we can logically estimate this force will be like:
*The force is constant, our notion of time doesn't stop.
*The force is individual.
*The force is out of our control, we cannot fastforeward, pauze or rewind.
*The force is not distorted by the presence of energy, be it in the form of weak force, strong force, EM or gravity (gravity effects the dimension itself which is material, not our notion of time) so the force is probably metaphysical (not made up by the same energy as everything else in our universe that we know is made up out of).

4. This is suprising close to dualism. It doesn't "proof" any religion, since most religions have this notion embedded, but it does pose rather dificult questions to atheism, hence I tried to bring it up here.

 

[root]

Well it breaks down like this:

1. Einstein's relativity theory show us that time is a dimension. And suggests that eternalism (were both present, future and past are simultaniously existing) is the right aproach to time.

This is not correct. Einstien's theory "PREDICTS" that time is a dimension.

Source:http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/406.html

The Gravity Probe B Mission by NASA set's out to test this prediction:

According to Einstein's 1916 general theory of relativity—our present theory of gravitation—space and time are inextricably woven into a four-dimensional fabric called spacetime, and gravity is nothing but the warping and twisting of spacetime by massive celestial bodies. Is this theory correct? The Gravity Probe B (GP-B) satellite recently completed its first year in orbit around the Earth and is continuing to collect data in the first controlled experiment specifically designed to answer this question.

Steve is making a simple error in asking us to beleive the prediction to be correct as proof, whilst this might be true we just cannot say right now since the experiment may well falsify what he is suggesting. Here is a link for the current status of the experiment:

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

 

[Abdul Fattah]

This is not correct. Einstien's theory "PREDICTS" that time is a dimension.

Source:http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/406.html

The Gravity Probe B Mission by NASA set's out to test this prediction:

According to Einstein's 1916 general theory of relativity—our present theory of gravitation—space and time are inextricably woven into a four-dimensional fabric called spacetime, and gravity is nothing but the warping and twisting of spacetime by massive celestial bodies. Is this theory correct? The Gravity Probe B (GP-B) satellite recently completed its first year in orbit around the Earth and is continuing to collect data in the first controlled experiment specifically designed to answer this question.

Just because the title says Einstein wrnog, doesn't mean this sugegst time isn't a dimension. It simply means Einstein was wrong about some of his interpretations and his views need to be revised, not thrown away completely.
If in fact their speculations turns out accurate, and the string theory is hereby proven; that will have some influences on how we see time, but note that this string theory also suggests time is a dimension. so either way, that part is safe! another point to raise is tha the conclusivness of this experement is questionable. Will the difrent clock really be in the same zero-gravity field? Or are they within the gravity field of the spaceship that carries them? And if they are within that gravity field of the space ship that carries them, are they lmocated at an equal distance from center gravitational point of that ship? I take it you see where I'm going at...

 

[root]

This is getting so boring:

Just because the title says Einstein wrnog, doesn't mean this sugegst time isn't a dimension.

And it does not suggest it is either

It simply means Einstein was wrong about some of his interpretations and his views need to be revised, not thrown away completely.

Correct but it will implicate his "PREDICTION" about time being a dimension. We don't know if he was wrong, his prediction cannot be shown correct or false until next year.

If in fact their speculations turns out accurate, and the string theory is hereby proven; that will have some influences on how we see time, but note that this string theory also suggests time is a dimension.

I agree, still not shown to be correct (PS, can we stop calling it string theory because it confuses the issue, string theory has multiple theories. Which one are you talking about. perhpas we could agree to "M" Theory. And can you give me anything that M theory has predicted correctly yet? On seconds thought perhaps not. You think a prediction is proof enough.

so either way, that part is safe! another point to raise is tha the conclusivness of this experement is questionable. Will the difrent clock really be in the same zero-gravity field? Or are they within the gravity field of the spaceship that carries them? And if they are within that gravity field of the space ship that carries them, are they lmocated at an equal distance from center gravitational point of that ship? I take it you see where I'm going at...

You trying to give me ammo for when you are proven right. Assuming of course the prdiction does confirm the prediction.

All your evidence merely "PREDICTS", that is not proof.

Come back for this discussion at the beginning of 2007 when the results will be fully available. Until then stop trying to make me beleive a prediction is proof. I wanto see the prediction is confirmed this will happen next year.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

It has nothing toi do with predictions. Time being a dimension has become a part of our science that is almost imposible to push away. And all these movements that are currently happening in the area of string theory do not undermine that thought, but rather include it in their theorys as well. This has nothing to do with predictions. General relativity is tested. The data proved it to be true. The only uncertainty is how we should niterpretet that data. And that uncertainty leads to such vieuws going back and forth. However non of these theorys undermine the notion of time being a dimension it is an inevetible result of the existance of time dillation.

 

[root]

General relativity is tested.

:heated:

Or so you thought at least........ If it was tested then why are they testing it's prediction? They would have already done that.

Think about it for some time......

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I've already showed you three tests that proved his theory right. If you don't want to accept it ...well thta's your decision then.

 

[root]

Sorry Steve,

You were always doomed to fail because you failed to acknowledge that what you called proof was a prediction and one that is still scientifically unresolved. Until it is, your overall case cannot be made with any scientific consensus. It's frustrating I know, but that's life in science............

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Sorry Steve,
You were always doomed to fail because you failed to acknowledge that what you called proof was a prediction and one that is still scientifically unresolved. Until it is, your overall case cannot be made with any scientific consensus. It's frustrating I know, but that's life in science............

I'd apreciate you'd stop putting words into my mounth, the proof I gave you were tests performed by noble prize winners and NASA itself, no predictions. Tests and data.

If you don't want to accept that part... well that's your decision then.
I do find the following parallelism ironic:

* You accept evolution, yet refuse time as a dimension (=relativity theory).

* Evolution is based on assumptions. Time as a dimension is based on empirical testing.

* Evolution can not be tested, time as a dimension is tested by three difrent experiments.

* Evolution cannot make any predictions. Relativity with time as a dimension can.

* If it would be false it would not undermine any other part of science. If time as a dimension would turn out to be false our whole scientific vieuwpoint would fall down.

* EvolutionIt isn't even a solid theory with all the missing links. Time as a dimension is a complete theory with no missing links and an acceptable explenations. There are still questions we haven't answered and things that we cannot investigate, but so far there is no indication at all that they bring any problem to our view of time.