Chess Online

Play online chess!

Pages:  1 2 Next »
From	Message
softaire 01-Jan-22, 09:38	Time This could be an interesting discussion. There are several qualified people here who are able to discuss the physical and philosophical aspects of time. There should be no need for politics this time, (pun intended) as far as I can see. So, what is time? Is time a linear event or is time made of small individual packets? Why does time "look like" it slows down (relative to us) depending on velocity and/or nearness to large objects? Does time speed up for us, individually, as we grow older?
thumper 01-Jan-22, 11:36	<This thing all things devours: birds, beasts, trees, flowers; Gnaws iron, bites steel; grinds hard stones to meal; Slays king, ruins town, And beats high mountain down.> - J.R.R Tolkien, 'The Hobbit' Dr. Soran to Picard, Star Trek 'Generations': <...We're all going to die sometime. It's just a question of how and when. You will too, Captain. Aren't you beginning to feel time gaining on you? It's like a predator; it's stalking you. Oh, you can try and outrun it with doctors, medicines, new technologies. But in the end, time is going to hunt you down... and make the kill. They say time is the fire in which we burn. Right now, Captain, my time is running out. We leave so many things unfinished in our lives.>
softaire 01-Jan-22, 15:16	I know that we think of time as us existing continuously from one moment to the next, with no breaks, moving smoothly from the past into the now and later into the future. But why do we measure it in finite bits and pieces like years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds, and even smaller pieces as if time is made of small quantum bits? Can it be that time is a physical entity, a particle, that can be slowed down or bent just as light is?
stalhandske 01-Jan-22, 20:02	<Can it be that time is a physical entity, a particle, that can be slowed down or bent just as light is? > Time is indeed a physical entity, but not a particle. According to Einstein, it is indeed slowed down when the speed of the object approaches the speed of light. Another way to describe time is to relate it to the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, which says that all action is irreversible. This forces action to occur WITH TIME. Yet another way to envisage time, now on the quantum level, is the Planck's constant, the smallest possible increment in time.
pawntificator 01-Jan-22, 22:42	In some sense time is simply a measure of change in position. If everything held completely still you would have no way of knowing how much time had passed.
mo-oneandmore 02-Jan-22, 03:31	Tick Tock Time is a continuous chain of instantaneous (maybe near instantaneous) events that randomly occurs as possibly one single chaotic event throughout the Cosmos.
stalhandske 02-Jan-22, 03:34	<In some sense time is simply a measure of change in position. If everything held completely still you would have no way of knowing how much time had passed. > That's another way of stating what I tried to say about the 2nd Law. If nothing changes the system is in equilibrium. No time is consumed. You need change, increase of entropy, in order to have time.
pawntificator 02-Jan-22, 03:47	On another hand time is waiting through 8 hours until your shift is over.
softaire 02-Jan-22, 08:28	"According to Einstein, it is indeed slowed down when the speed of the object approaches the speed of light." I think this actually means that time is also relative to the frame of reference, just as is light and gravity. From our perspective on Earth, somebody going at or near the speed of light, will experience time much slower than we do. But, to them, time remains the same. Relative to us in our frame of reference, their time has slowed down. To them our time has speeded up. Time is "relative" to the frame of reference. The part I find incredible is that the human body and all things within the frame of reference would also slow down based on the speed of the entire frame of reference. So, being on Earth, I might live 80 years. I get in a rocket ship and start accelerating away from Earth up to almost the speed of light. As time slows down relative to Earth time, my body ages slow down so that I still only live 80 years, but compared to Earth time I may have aged 800 years. HOW would my body know I was moving?
mo-oneandmore 03-Jan-22, 08:03	soft Time has zero concern and is NOT affected by one's reference point for any reason other than the idea that any other event of time that occurred at your immediate reference point takes "TIME" to reach you --- it has something to do with speed of light stuff (C), but I don't have time to argue those matters (phenomena) kike that to bullheaded types like you. And PS: Einstein was right: Time doesn't just "slow down" when a particle of matter attains light speed --- it stops and the clock of time stops ticking (no more tick tock) Your last paragraph was incorrect in its statement, Soft. If you left earth travelling at light speed for 80 years and then returned to earth; you would have aged zero years, would have experienced zero elapsed time and everything on earth would have aged 80 years on your return.
softaire 03-Jan-22, 08:47	Mo Thanks for your contribution but I don't see how any of this makes me "bullheaded". No matter... I think you are wrong in saying that in my round-robin trip I would have aged ZERO years and Earth would have aged 80 years. I don't think you understood the question and that may be my poor description of it. My question was while I was an earthling my body ages at a certain rate. When I am in a spaceship going nearly the speed of light my body (supposedly) ages much slower... in tune with the slowdown of time in the spaceship (as seen from Earth's reference). The question was HOW does my body know that it is going nearly the speed of light and changes (slows down) the aging process? If the spaceship accelerates at one G to get to nearly the speed of light, the body feels exactly like it was on Earth. It can't know that it is continually accelerating, going faster. There is NO reason for it to slow down the aging process. How do YOU figure that if I travel for 80 years (whether straight ahead or round trip to Earth) that I would age zero years? That doesn't make sense. If I traveled for 80 years as measured in in my spaceship, and returned to Earth... the Earth clocks would have aged "some big number". I don't know if it would be 800 years or what it would be (I just plucked that number out to mean a big number, certainly bigger than 80)
mo-oneandmore 03-Jan-22, 10:35	soft It's entirely possible (even likely) that you miss-stated your comment, soft, but your upgrade is still flawed because you would need about 7,000 years of continuous 1G acceleration to attain light speed and then de-accelerate back to a safe landing on earth; so you would be long dead by the time you got back to earth, because you would have aged at least half of that by then --- of course: Earth would have aged the entire 7000 years, so you might not be that dried up when compared to a global warming exercise that would likely be kicked-in on earth, since Man doesn't appear to be interested in doing much about our self-made global warming crisis. If, on the other hand, you merely accelerated at 1G for 80 years, you would age and experience about 78 years or so of aging, while the earth would still age 80 years. But that's Einstein's Time for ya --- not that it isn't a bit strange how it works, huh?
softaire 03-Jan-22, 13:22	That doesn't sound right to me. Does anyone else have any ideas about this?
thumper 03-Jan-22, 19:41	To me it's just mental masturbation. In 80 years I will have been dead for about 50 years... if I'm lucky.
stalhandske 03-Jan-22, 20:28	All that one needs to remember is that time is not an independent variable.
pawntificator 03-Jan-22, 23:19	I saw an interesting video recently that said gravity was the result the space-time curvature and time-dilation. www.youtube.com
stalhandske 04-Jan-22, 01:50	<I saw an interesting video recently that said gravity was the result the space-time curvature and time-dilation. < Wheeev, you noticed what Einstein showed more than 100 years ago! Congratulations!
pawntificator 04-Jan-22, 04:54	Well, I thought his explanation was illuminating. But you keep on being your cheerful self.
stalhandske 04-Jan-22, 06:14	Applauds for the illumination. Better later than never.
softaire 04-Jan-22, 06:58	So NO contributions from Stalh, LS, or anybody else about: 1) Assuming I am in a windowless rocket ship, how does my body (that feels Earth gravity and time at 1 G acceleration) know that it is actually going near the speed of light and therefore slows down its' aging process? 2) If I leave Earth at a rate almost equal to the speed of light and then return after enough time such that my body feels 80 years old... will Earth be much, much older and will many years have passed on Earth such that my friends will probably have grown old and died? (Stalh... I was hoping to keep this thread unbiased and no snarky replies. I thought this topic could be one for honest discussion. I certainly do not know the answers)
stalhandske 04-Jan-22, 08:33	<(Stalh... I was hoping to keep this thread unbiased and no snarky replies. I thought this topic could be one for honest discussion. I certainly do not know the answers) > I don't know what there is to discuss. Especially with people who don't anyway give a shoot about fact, but only make their own OPINIONS. So why don't you apply that here, too.
softaire 04-Jan-22, 12:29	Once again Stalh would rather be combative, abusive, and argumentative rather than discuss honestly (and cordially) some very interesting questions. And, there are no others who care to speculate or offer their opinions. MO is the only person who offered any content. Does not say much for the members of this club does it. We seem to have a need to discuss politics and lash out with snarky remarks, or not at all.
stalhandske 04-Jan-22, 20:00	softaire <We seem to have a need to discuss politics and lash out with snarky remarks, or not at all. > That's just because of YOUR attitude! You think you can have an OPINION about covid vaccinations, for example. With that OPINION you simply trash all solid FACTS about it, and think that you have the right to do so. All right, if that is your attitude, why should I bother to discuss anything with you (like the concept of time), because whatever I say you will have your OPINION. All I hope to achieve here is to convince people that facts are facts and cannot be 'opinionated' or 'politicised'.
softaire 04-Jan-22, 21:11	"You think you can have an OPINION about covid vaccinations, ... and think that you have the right to do so." There you have it. The BOSS won't talk to me because no matter what HE says, I will still have my own opinion. HOW DARE I have an opinion? I think we refer to that as an autocrat, bureaucrat who has the impression that we MUST believe and obey HIM. HE knows better than anybody else, no matter the circumstances and contradictory messages, events, or evidence. I think it is good and beneficial that we have the right to our own opinions based on our own knowledge, experience, and evidence. Woe to us if we are forced into believing and behaving as the dictator, or the government, mandates.
stalhandske 04-Jan-22, 21:21	Softaire Apologies again, but you seem to misunderstand. OF COURSE you should have an opinion! But when that opinon neglects all serious scientific research and data, what should I call it? Bruce, without much exaggeration - but just to try to make you understand - your opinion in this matter is like the opinion (in fact sometimes expressed by people in this club) that the Earth is flat. Sure, you have the right to hold to that opinion, but please don't expect me to accept it.
stalhandske 04-Jan-22, 21:27	Softaire I know it is very difficult to depart from one's position. I also know that trying to force people out of such a position (when they are mistaken) is usually met by aggression, because that's the only way out of having been forced into a corner. So, I really don't expect you to understand my points or -even less - to agree with them. This is why I have by now given up all hope to inject some useful information for you guys. So, please, just follow your alternative truths and I am sure that will make you happy at least in the short run.
pawntificator 04-Jan-22, 23:03	Stalhandske consistently says things to me like "that proves who you are" with disgusted contempt, so it's clear he is not able to compartmentalize different issues and opinions to their respective and proper place. He does not seem to be very nuanced and likes to apply his cudgel indiscriminately across all topics based on what he perceives. So he can't be blamed for behaving in this manner. He's just not there yet.
pawntificator 04-Jan-22, 23:07	One of my favorite time paradoxes is Zeno's. In a race in which the tortoise is in the lead, the hare can never overtake him because every time he halves the distance between them there still remains some distance to overcome. You can cut the distance in half forever and there will still be a length to achieve. This is a proven fact. No racer has ever come from behind to win.
stalhandske 05-Jan-22, 00:43	<You can cut the distance in half forever and there will still be a length to achieve. This is a proven fact. No racer has ever come from behind to win. > Really, a fact? Well, I disagree. In my OPINION the hare overtakes the tortoise every time, simply becaise it is so much faster. I have the right to have my opinion, it is the alternative fact!
pawntificator 05-Jan-22, 01:08	Well, the truth of the matter is that your opinion is wrong. The Hare is so confident that he has all the time in the world that he takes a nap. By the time the Tortoise crosses the Finnish line as the victor it doesn't matter how many times you take the limit to infinity or to zero; the Hare cannot be saved. Time has run out.
Pages:  1 2 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, free online chess games database, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, chess clubs, online chess puzzles and more.