Jim:
I suspected that, I wrought about commonly and generally known things of general relativity and another things of physics, because I give them as known, in any case I thought
If he doesn't, he will question me.
Well in this case not knowing physics it's not a problem but an advantage, physicists seriously think the subject belong to physics, they are wrong, since I knew that the so called "time" is "movement" (I was 27) I realize that this does not belong to any specific discipline, no physics, no philosophy and less mathematics, but if I have to choose one discipline I would choose anthropology, psychology and a little bit of psychiatry.
This days physicists, especially theoretical physicists are great mathematicians that never require the help of common physicists, that they needed badly, instead Einstein was a great physicist that always required the help of mathematicians. Physicists now are self-sufficient, wrong, when you don't know something ask about it .Most theoretical phyhsicists, after general relativity they start looking for "the theory of everything" for that they needed to know "the nature of time" Maldacena were looking for it many years, failed, then as great mathematician he is he joint and help to advance "the string theory" to reach his goal, Smolin, Rovelli, they look for "the time nature" failed then they made "the loop quantum theory" a quantum gravity theory, also hoping to reach their goal. Even Christopher Isham that insisted that to reach "the theory of everything" he said "we have to know "the time nature" it looks that finally got tired and is looking now for the "topos theory". And many more. All this show how important is to know "the time nature", not knowing this have a really bad consequence for the discipline. They are becoming lost. (just see google).
Jim don't be afraid to know. During 18 years I read physics not because I really like it but because after I knew that the so called "time" was "movement" and because of being out of the discipline I decided to write a book "TIEMPO" and this, was to give them what they needed, "the nature of time" and because I did not know for what physicists needed it, for what or were they needed it and also to communicate with them, I have to read physics. You Jim were searching for "the nature of time" and had not the same motivation I had.
To find "the nature of time" I did not relay either on physics and mathematics, I just knew, what people said, that Einstein was a genius, in those years I just was thinking of, how it was possible that speed can slow time? , just the opposite of you, many years after I find out that the so called "time" was "movement" I start reading physics.
I don't know nothing of physics, even if you did not know the little I know of it.To know "the nature of time" You would see, you only need elementary school mathematics and high school physics an this is more than enough.
The problem is really another, first read again what Einstein said: " "Ideas and Opinions" Einstein, pg.283 y 284, ISBN Nº 440-04150-150.
"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. It is for this reason that the critical thinking of the physicist cannot possibly be restricted to the examination of the concepts of his own specific field. He cannot proceed without considering critically a much more difficult problem, the problem of analyzing the nature of everyday thinking.
Our psychological experience contains, in colorful succession, sense experiences, memory pictures of them, images, and feelings. In contrast to psychology, physics treats directly only of sense experiences and of the "understanding" of their connection. But even the concept of the "real external world" of everyday thinking rests exclusively of sense impressions"
Please Jim read this with full attention , specially the following three lines:
" the problem of analyzing the nature of everyday thinking".
"physics treats directly only of sense experiences"
"everyday thinking rests exclusively of sense impressions"
Our brains without our senses are nothing.
About what I did say that being a physicist, or if we did study physics was more than an advantage an inconvenient, Einstein suggested the same. You know that Faraday knew as much mathematics as you and me, and he did not study physics in any physic school, he tried to prove his discovery , with iron filling, and rubber bands. Einstein said : " It is fascinating to muse: would Faraday have discovered the law of electromagnetic induction if he had received a regular college education?. Unencumbered by the traditional way of thinking......".(page 335). But Faraday was lucky and was find by an intelligent physicist and mathematician, Maxwell that put mathematics to Faraday written laws.
You know, that when I was young I explain to a friend of main, that was shoes repairman, who among physicians, engineers, lawyers, physicists that I knew, he was the most intelligent, he did not want to be anything else, I thought him the basic necessary things and after I explained him a really complex metabolic process, He understood perfectly he explaining back to me. On a fishing trip I did the same to a fifty or so year's old man without a finished elementary school. You know culture and intelligence are related but are not the same.
People attribute to Schrödinger a 19 century Austrian physicist this: "If we explain to an intelligent 14 year old boy our idea and he does not understand it, it's a fraud". If we really know something we should be able to explain to any normal human being. But all this implied personal and not written explanation, this I find out it's more difficult.
Einstein himself explain what he did with general relativity , with words (no mathematics needed) in "Ideas and Opìnions". Since Newton "space" and "time" were considered as absolute, this means as an scenery " where , "when" and "where" events happen, with relativity "space" and "time" became relatives, these are no more fundamentals in some way these loose importance, this means these are not any more independents, at contrary these depend, i.e. of inertia and gravity "forces". When he said "velocity" and "gravity" of a body slow "time" for the body, every physicist knows that and also know how to calculate the slowing, having the data of the speed (respect to a coordinate system) of the body and the speed of light and can proved that mathematically (you don't need that). They can do that, but they don't know how speed and gravity slow the so called "time", they don't understand that, just because they don't know what the so called "time" is, to know how the slowing happen you have to know the experimental meaning of "time" , they are looking for it and they called it "the nature of time", concretely, what they measure with clocks, and what they are measuring is "movement" (they are not conscious of it) as a consequence the so called "the nature of time" is "movement" the Fqxi contest to which you present your article, could be answered with just one word "movement", to help them you can explain why.
This is the theoretical explanation, but later they proved this experimentally with the Hafele-Keating experiment (atomic clocks in an airplain) and the GPS (global positioning system) where especial and general relativity, the first slow the satellite clock (inertia) and the second accelerate the clock functioning because is to far from earth (gravity) you can look for them in google.
Just read with attention, you need no mathematics, Imagine an a especial air plain with an analogical clock inside, flying not to high , the air plain speed would increase the plain and the clock mass, this means inertia would increase if we refer to the so called "time", speed will slow the so called "time", nobody know how and why, but if you know that the so called "time" is "movement" you can understand that the inertia will slow clock moving parts in that way slowing clock functioning, respect a similar clock in land. What slows is the clock functioning not the inexistent so called "time"
i.e. Imagine you are in a power full car, steep on the accelerator your body would sink on the back seat, What else? It would become hard for you to move forward, upward, and to both sides, why? because inertia would make difficult every movement of you, will slow your movements, like the clock moving parts. So speed will slow "time"?. No, will slow clock functioning, will slow "movement" not the so called "time" because does not exist.
Please read again this: "We believe that, when we are looking at a clock, we are measuring "time", wrong we are measuring "movement". With the "constant" "uniform" or "regular" hour hand "movement" on the clock dial, we are measuring the
earth constant rotational "movement" fraction,
represented by the numbers on it, we just has measured "movement" with "movement" (and no "time" with "movement") We are not conscious that we are doing this, but as you see, can be physically proved. Two millenniums ago or more that we think we are measuring "time", it is hard to let this word "time" aside".
In short with the clock "constant" "movement"
we are measuring the earth "constant" rotational "movement" fraction,
represented by the dial numbers
We are measuring that and no the so called "time".
Clocks become practical copies of earth "constant" rotational "movement"
For all this you need no mathematics and almost no physics.
Einstein with mathematics "predicted" that speed would slow time, but if he did not born and there is no especial and general relativity. If you have the necessary means you would be able to prove this anyway (inertia and gravity slows "movement")
There are more things, but this is already to long. I hope you understand that they want to know what they are measuring with the clocks. I hope you understand they are measuring "movement." Mathematically everybody or most of them agree in what "space-time" is but there is not agreement on the real meaning of it, no physicist or most, don't know that Einstein made a verbal description of "space-time", and knowing that the so called "time" is "movement" you can see it's meaning much more clearly, and also you can explain why "space-time" can't be separated in "space" and "time" this physicists can't explained . There are many other things about the so called "time" but first you should know this. If you don't know something ask me pointedly. If you wanted to know the so called "the nature of time" since decades and you understood this post, read again all the other posts I wrote, will help.
Héctor
