Of course, the Sun would, very slowly, move higher and lower in the sky as the Earth revolved around the Sun, as a result of the Earth`s tilted axis.
The Nature of Time
[deleted]
Jim, if the Earth and Sun did not move relative to each other it would not provide a timing method. So the seen position of the Sun would not be considered a particular time. There are other timing methods.
(For clarity your most recent quotes are me quoting you and you quoting yourself)
That was me, Georgina
Georgina,
Sorry, but what you say is nonsense. E.g.:
1. Mass:
The equations of physics show that mass is a relationship. Mass is not "because of the arrangement" of a piece of matter's "constituent particles".
(Note that "pattern"/ "arrangement" information cannot just automatically "exist". "Pattern"/ "arrangement" information is necessarily an outcome of very complex algorithmic information processing; it is something that requires the information processing capabilities of living things.)
Also, mass information is never "unmeasured". Mass is an information relationship carried by things like particles; the numbers that apply to mass can be different from different points of view.
2. Position:
With or without the "imposition of an artificial coordinate frame", position information is an information relationship carried by things like particles: no particle means no frame of reference and no position. (I mean relative position: no one would claim that absolute position information could exist in the universe)
3. Time:
Re "Time is the entire arrangement of existing things. Each different entire pattern a different time....": As I noted above: "pattern"/ "arrangement" information cannot just automatically "exist". "Pattern"/ "arrangement" information is necessarily an outcome of very complex algorithmic information processing; it is something that requires the information processing capabilities of living things. You are talking about history, you are not talking about physics' Time.
Holography the time. Perhaps time can be expressed as
[math]$$ t=\frac{Gh}{c^4}\int\frac{dS}{r} $$[/math]
Where S is the entropy of entanglement of an arbitrary closed surface. r is the radius to the surface point. Integration over a closed surface.
This is very similar to the analogy. Time behaves as a potential, and entropy as a charge.
From this formula there are several possible consequences.
1.Bekenstein Hawking entropy for the event horizon. Light cone case
[math]$$ r=ct $$[/math]
[math]$$ S=\frac{c^3}{Gh}r^2$$[/math]
2.Gravitational time dilation. The case if matter inside a closed surface processes information at the quantum level according to the Margolis-Livitin theorem.
[math]$$ dI=\frac{dMc^2 t}{h} $$[/math]
[math]$$ \Delta t=\frac{Gh}{c^4}\int\frac{dI}{r}=t\frac{GM}{c^2r}$$[/math]
3.The formula is invariant under Lorentz transformations.
4.If this definition is substituted instead of time, then the interval acquires a different look, which probably indicates a different approach of the Minkowski pseudometric with a complex plane
[math]$$ s^2=(l^2_{p}\frac{S}{r})^2-r^2 $$[/math]
Where is the squared length of Planck
[math]$$ l^2_{p}=\frac{Gh}{c^3} $$[/math]
Quantum tunneling of noncommutative geometry gives the definition of time in the form of holography, that is, in the form of a closed surface integral. Ultimately, the holography of time shows the dualism between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity.Attachment #1: 1_dualism_1.pdfAttachment #2: 1_Quantum_tunneling_approach_of_noncommutative_geometry.docx
Hi Georgina,
"If the rotation period slowed to 1 rotation every 365 days a condition called `sun synchronous` every spot in the Earth would have permanent daytime or nighttime all year long. This is similar to the situation on the moon where for 2 weeks the front-side is illuminated by the Sun, and for 2 weeks the back side is illuminated. This situation for the Earth is not the condition of `stopped` rotation, but it is as close as the laws of physics will let the Earth get.
If it stopped spinning completely, ...not even once every 365 days, you would get 1/2 year daylight and 1/2 year nightime."
Copyright 1997 Dr. Sten Odenwald
Under these conditions, we would be inclined to assume that time did not exist, as some kind of force or thing.
Lorraine,
mass of a piece of matter is related to density of its constituents which is related to how those constituents are arranged. I don't disagree that there must be a particle for a position of it. Just saying there is a position relative to other things even if no artificial co ordinate frame is applied. The relationship of everything to everything else is a pattern even unseen. As I said in another post you are considering the knowledge side of the Reality interface (sensory interface) with external nature.- Knowledge obtained from measurement or observation, providing measurement outcomes, observation products or Image reality. I was talking about the other side of the sensory interface partly because you mentioned existing since the early universe; i.e pre human observers.
No, Georgina.
1. Relationships are carried by things like particles; these relationships involve categories (like mass, charge and momentum), as represented in the equations of the laws of physics. Specific relationships exist, but there exists no "relationship of everything to everything else".
2. Pattern is discerned by human beings and other living things that can do the algorithmic processing required to see a pattern in raw data information. No pattern information existed before living things analysed and collated raw data. There exists no such abstractly-existing thing as "pattern, even unseen."
3. Relationship is not pattern. Sorry, but this is just nonsense: "The relationship of everything to everything else is a pattern even unseen."
Lorraine,
I don't think particles are carrying the relationships they are involved in.
Can a pattern exist even unseen? I'd say yes just as any material object exists even unseen. "Is the Moon there when i'm not looking?" Einstein. I'd say yes but the seen Moon and the existing independent of observation Moon are not the same thing. Seeing allows an observation product to be formed whereby the material things can be known. Knowing about (a representation formed by the mind) is not the same concept as existing of its own accord. Pattern is formed by the relationships of things; that applies to material things(external), abstract things ( their external representation or internal) and qualia (internal).
Georgina,
Pattern information allows human beings to distinguish a "Jonathan" apple from a "Rome Beauty" apple, and an Alfa Romeo sports car from a Mazda sports car. Some birds and other animals could also distinguish these patterns.
But a single-celled organism does not have the wherewithal to collect and analyse larger quantities of information: a single-celled organism could not distinguish a sports car or an apple.
The equations of physics show that the "underlying" universe distinguishes categories of information like mass and position; the underlying universe does not distinguish more complicated categories of information like "sports car" and "apple".
Hi Lorraine, I don't disagree with the first two paragraphs.
In the final paragraph you say the 'underlying' universe "distinguishes". Do you just mean treats differently? I think you are over-complicating matters. Isn't it just the 'properties' you call 'categories of information', that could be called physical attributes are different from each-other in underlying material reality.
I think a sports car and and apple are different too, in a number of ways, that we can separate out and identify ( and might call properties, or categories of physical attribute e.g. distribution of mass, density of whole, material properties, volume. I don't think there needs to be the assumption the universe does the same. They (car, apple) just are different so behave differently. Physics applies to the whole objects too.
Distinguish: "Recognize or treat (someone or something) as different", https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/distinguish
Georgina,
The equations of physics show that the underlying universe "treats" mass differently to the way it "treats" position or charge. The universe does not treat apples differently to sports cars because the underlying universe does not distinguish an apple from a sports car.
The equations of physics do not apply to whole objects, the equations only apply to (e.g.) mass, position and charge.
Lorraine, how does the universe, the entirety of existence, treat things differently? You seem to be making an argument for involvement- that the entirety is doing something that is separable from what happens because of the condition of minute parts in certain contexts. "The equations of physics show that the underlying universe "treats" mass differently to the way it "treats" position or charge. " wrote Lorraine. I think physics just differentiates attributes that are different. The entirety of the universe is not involved, other than their being (unspoken) an assumption that the rules apply throughout the universe. The physics applies to the whole/ complete attributes of the objects- the whole mass of the car, the whole volume of the car etc. Different outcomes in a given scenario happen as the car and apple are existentially different.
Physics, the science, does treat attributes of objects as if separable. Certain aspects can be considered independently. However what is happening outside of the intellectual considerations, to real objects, is not separated out. Attributes such as, mass, volume, location, velocity, density are all aspects of the objects existence/ happening. They do not exist alone without the object but together contribute to what the object is/does.
Georgina,
The laws of physics are equations that show relationships between information. Physicists have found relationships between information; physicists have not found relationships between things like particles, apples and cars.
So the underlying universe "knows" information; it does not "know" things like particles, apples and cars. To say that the underlying universe knows a thing (e.g. a particle, apple or car) is to say that a set of basic identifying information has been given a higher-level classification as a "particle", "apple" or "car". Physicists know particles, apples and cars, but what physicists know is different to what the underlying universe "knows".
Lorraine I don't know what you mean by "knows". Like knowing but not exactly knowing; 'In a manner of speaking', is my understanding from the speak marks. Are you implying; comprehension?, perception?, awareness?, sentience?
What are your thoughts on concepts such as temperature, pressure, air flows and lift, resistance , voltage, current, magnetic flux, attraction and repulsion of charged particles, that are also parts of physics?
Georgina,
I have used loose terminology: I will put it another way.
There exists fundamental law of nature relationships (information relationships) representable as equations. These are "known by the universe" [1]. Categories like temperature and pressure are not "known by the universe", but are larger scale consequences of small-scale particle outcomes due to the fundamental law of nature relationships. Many of the "laws of physics" are in effect "laws of consequence".
What we call "temperature" and "pressure" is higher-level information, known by organisms because this knowledge is necessary to the survival of organisms which can only survive in a limited temperature and pressure range. Physics has mathematically represented and quantified the effects, consequences and regularities (e.g. temperature and pressure) that human beings have noticed. There is no need to get overawed by equations: they just our representations of something about the universe. Temperature and pressure are categories of information that don't exist at the particle, atomic or molecular (simple molecules) level: I think we can presume that particles, atoms and simple molecules are not trying to survive.
1. I don't mean that information abstractly exists in the universe, or that the universe is an actual entity that knows information. The basic units that "know" different levels of information are particles, atoms, molecules and living things.
Hi Lorraine,
You have argued that "Physicists have found relationships between information'...." So the underlying universe "knows" information; " I understand now that when you say " the universe "knows", you are referring to particles, atoms , molecules and living things "knowing". It doesn't follow that because physicists know, the underlying universe; particles, atoms etc., but not physicist, knows. Physicists have structural and functional brains that can process inputs into meaning. They also have memories and recall, allowing not just fleeting awareness but (learned) knowing. Particles, atoms and molecules can not know in the same way. They lack the wherewithal; the structural and functional organization. You still haven't explained the meaning of "knows" in speak marks.