Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

Easily. Don't equate passing time with time that has passed.

If the universe had an infinite regress of time, do you agree that there would be an infinite number of hours before today?

 

[untermensche]

Are you saying that "slower time" must mean more seconds in time?

If we say that a second is a specific amount of time that can be relatively experienced then one can experience the amount of time we call a second as we normally do, due to our velocity, or one can experience that same second as lasting longer if you are moving faster.

It is the same amount of time just experienced differently.

So everybody is experiencing the same time, just experiencing it differently. Nobody is moving forward in time and nobody is moving backward. Some are experiencing the same time one way and some, moving faster, are experiencing it another.

Bloody hell. You really dig your head in the sand. You dont really read what I write, do you? And you are totally ignorant on the theory of relativity.

For a over a century it has been a well known fact that time is different for frames of references with different relative speeds.

My understanding of relativity is what I wrote.

The experience of time is relative. If you move faster than someone you experience time as moving slower than them.

What have I gotten wrong?

 

[Juma]

Bloody hell. You really dig your head in the sand. You dont really read what I write, do you? And you are totally ignorant on the theory of relativity.

For a over a century it has been a well known fact that time is different for frames of references with different relative speeds.

My understanding of relativity is what I wrote.

The experience of time is relative. If you move faster than someone you experience time as moving slower than them.

What have I gotten wrong?

Hard to say, you seem very confused.

1) it's not just about what you experience, the physical time actually differ. The order of events will differ.

2) You are always at rest relative your frame of reference. Noone can move slower than that.
Thus you will always see others frames as moving faster than yours and thus their time will go slower than yours.

 

[untermensche]

My understanding of relativity is what I wrote.

The experience of time is relative. If you move faster than someone you experience time as moving slower than them.

What have I gotten wrong?

Hard to say, you seem very confused.

1) it's not just about what you experience, the physical time actually differ. The order of events will differ.

2) You are always at rest relative your frame of reference. Noone can move slower than that.
Thus you will always see others frames as moving faster than yours and thus their time will go slower than yours.

I see, I seem confused.

Yet you can't say why or about what.

When you say the order of events will differ I don't know what you're talking about. Broken plates jump off the floor and become whole again?

If time stretches out for the observer moving faster then a second is longer for them. So that observer is not experiencing a second in time nobody else is experiencing. They are not experiencing some personal "now". Their seconds, to them, are just longer than the seconds of other observers. But if we recorded that observer's second in time it would appear as a normal second to us in our frame of reference.

There is only one "now".

 

[Kharakov]

Easily. Don't equate passing time with time that has passed.

If the universe had an infinite regress of time, do you agree that there would be an infinite number of hours before today?

Depends on if we're playing word games or not.

 

[ryan]

If the universe had an infinite regress of time, do you agree that there would be an infinite number of hours before today?

Depends on if we're playing word games or not.

of course not

 

[skepticalbip]

 

[skepticalbip]

Hard to say, you seem very confused.

1) it's not just about what you experience, the physical time actually differ. The order of events will differ.

2) You are always at rest relative your frame of reference. Noone can move slower than that.
Thus you will always see others frames as moving faster than yours and thus their time will go slower than yours.

I see, I seem confused.

Yet you can't say why or about what.

When you say the order of events will differ I don't know what you're talking about. Broken plates jump off the floor and become whole again?

If time stretches out for the observer moving faster then a second is longer for them. So that observer is not experiencing a second in time nobody else is experiencing. They are not experiencing some personal "now". Their seconds, to them, are just longer than the seconds of other observers. But if we recorded that observer's second in time it would appear as a normal second to us in our frame of reference.

There is only one "now".

This shows entirely too much confusion about the subject.

General relativity is too much for you but please read this extremely simplified (actually overly simplified) explanation of special relativity:

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/exp/gedanken.html

 

[untermensche]

I see, I seem confused.

Yet you can't say why or about what.

When you say the order of events will differ I don't know what you're talking about. Broken plates jump off the floor and become whole again?

If time stretches out for the observer moving faster then a second is longer for them. So that observer is not experiencing a second in time nobody else is experiencing. They are not experiencing some personal "now". Their seconds, to them, are just longer than the seconds of other observers. But if we recorded that observer's second in time it would appear as a normal second to us in our frame of reference.

There is only one "now".

This shows entirely too much confusion about the subject.

General relativity is too much for you but please read this extremely simplified (actually overly simplified) explanation of special relativity...

Your opinion is noted.

So is your lack of any specific I could respond to.

 

[skepticalbip]

This shows entirely too much confusion about the subject.

General relativity is too much for you but please read this extremely simplified (actually overly simplified) explanation of special relativity...

Your opinion is noted.

So is your lack of any specific I could respond to.

Just trying to help you so your posts don't appear so idiotic. The link is to a very (acutally overly) simplified explanation of special relativity that even pre-teens can understand if they will accept that their preconceptions are in error. Fortunately pre-teens are willing to throw out their mistaken preconceptions.

Read the link and, if you understand it, you won't make such error filled assertions about spacetime. Don't worry. It isn't difficult and is very short. It looks like it was written for pre-teens with short attention spans.

 

[Kharakov]

Depends on if we're playing word games or not.

of course not

Ok, seeing as your post was followed by a Mobius strip, and I didn't make my post about Mobius spacetimes yesterday, I'm pretty sure we are playing wordgames, instead of taking the conversation to another level of complexity.

At the single dimensional complexity level we are currently at:
If time began, there is not an infinite regress of time.
If time always existed, there is an infinite regress of time.

It basically boils down to what untermensche said in his second post on the forums (iidb incarnation of the forums, 2006):

from A will to ...

To "will" something means to be the prime mover.
To be a cause without a preceding cause.
I don't think such a thing exists in this universe.
A cause removed from the chain of causation.

No cause without a preceding cause equates to an infinite causal chain.

 

[Malintent]

If the universe had an infinite regress of time, do you agree that there would be an infinite number of hours before today?

Depends on if we're playing word games or not.

Exactly.

How do you want to handle your division by zero error? You are asking what infinity / 2 is and hoping someone will say "infinity".

The best response to your question is that it is not a rational question. Now, my understanding is that you would like to get to say, "well then you have had an infinity to do X, therefore you don't exist... or something like that. But, as K said.. that is just playing word games with "infinity".

 

[ryan]

of course not

Ok, seeing as your post was followed by a Mobius strip, and I didn't make my post about Mobius spacetimes yesterday, I'm pretty sure we are playing wordgames, instead of taking the conversation to another level of complexity.

There are no word games or strips involved here.

Imagine an immortal person is born an infinite number of days before today. Would today ever come for him?

At the single dimensional complexity level we are currently at:
If time began, there is not an infinite regress of time.
If time always existed, there is an infinite regress of time.

It basically boils down to what untermensche said in his second post on the forums (iidb incarnation of the forums, 2006):

from A will to ...

To "will" something means to be the prime mover.
To be a cause without a preceding cause.
I don't think such a thing exists in this universe.
A cause removed from the chain of causation.

No cause without a preceding cause equates to an infinite causal chain.

The laws of physics break down at the quantum level.

Are you sure untermensche wasn't talking about a Möbius strip?

 

[untermensche]

I've made enough arguments in this thread.

I'm not going to defend what may be worthless arguments from 2006.

 

[ryan]

I've made enough arguments in this thread.

I'm not going to defend what may be worthless arguments from 2006.

You goddamn liar!!! I believed in you, and now this surfaces. Do you have any other skeletons in the closet that you want to tell me about?!

 

[Mageth]

Imagine an immortal person is born an infinite number of days before today. Would today ever come for him?

Why do you insist on going backwards to look for a beginning (i.e., the day this hypothetical immortal "is born") ??? You're just confusing yourself. (And that would qualify as word gaming, I think.)

And an answer to your question as stated is that yes, of course it would. The day the immortal person was born in your scenario as stated would, of course, be today. As would the next day, and so on, and so on, for an infinite number of days.


In any case, today comes whether or not time can be said to have a beginning. Today/now/the present is the leading edge of time, which is true whatever the answer to the question of time is.

 

[Juma]

When you say the order of events will differ I don't know what you're talking about. Broken plates jump off the floor and become whole again?

Did you read my example about the tunner with a pole in a tunnel? Didnt you understand that?

If time stretches out for the observer moving faster then a second is longer for them. So that observer is not experiencing a second in time nobody else is experiencing. They are not experiencing some personal "now". Their seconds, to them, are just longer than the seconds of other observers. But if we recorded that observer's second in time it would appear as a normal second to us in our frame of reference.

No. Events that are simultanious to me does not need to be simultanious to another observer.

 

[ryan]

Imagine an immortal person is born an infinite number of days before today. Would today ever come for him?

And an answer to your question as stated is that yes, of course it would. The day the immortal person was born in your scenario as stated would, of course, be today. As would the next day, and so on, and so on, for an infinite number of days.

What about the days he lived that he wasn't born? I don't think he would agree that he was born today.

In any case, today comes whether or not time can be said to have a beginning. Today/now/the present is the leading edge of time, which is true whatever the answer to the question of time is.

I strongly disagree.

Time moves forward. Today would be a sufficient end to an infinite regress (infinity), but there is no end to infinity.

 

[Bomb#20]

If the universe had an infinite regress of time, do you agree that there would be an infinite number of hours before today?

That doesn't follow. An infinite regress is a topological property of a set of points in time; the number of hours before a point is a geometric property. You can put the points in the interval (-infinity, now] into a continuous one-to-one correspondence with the points in the interval (0, now], which means the intervals are topologically identical. So mathematically you can easily fit an infinite regress of time into a bounded number of hours.

One might argue that this math has no physical significance -- that just because we can label infinitely many points in time "{...1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1}" doesn't mean there's an infinite chain of physical cause and effect. After all, a physical interaction between two particles takes a certain amount of time. However, if the particles used to be closer together and used to be moving faster than they are now, then an interaction would have taken less time in the past than it does now. And that is in fact the case, since this is an expanding universe. Actually 14 billion years turns out to be plenty of time for a chain of cause and effect containing infinitely many particle interactions. So an infinite regress of time without an infinite number of hours before today is a perfectly viable possibility.

 

[Kharakov]

I've made enough arguments in this thread.

I'm not going to defend what may be worthless arguments from 2006.

It's not worthless- it actually has a bit of solid logic to it. You just happen to be arguing against what you said (although you're approaching the idea from a different angle, which might be why your current statements are incorrect).