6 ms·

Given Einstein proved time is relative and not absolute I wonder at what time resolution all attempts to assume time as an absolute fall apart? The maximum dist

by noiv 4y ago

Given Einstein proved time is relative and not absolute I wonder at what time resolution all attempts to assume time as an absolute fall apart? The maximum distance of two surface nodes on this planet is about 20_000 km translating to about 67 milli seconds as speed of information. All discussion here assumes 17th century Newton's physics.

hinkley 4y ago
Much of the rule of law is based on cause and effect. Most of the people who get hung up on time stamps are trying to reconstruct a chain of events over time. And like a lot of concurrency problems, the solution seems to be to solve a different problem instead. Such as causal chaining. We made an error here because we were aware of three facts but not aware of a fourth. The answer is wrong but the data is consistent. That’s important for finding bugs. It’s also important for establishing intent. If I bonk you with a bat, it might be an accident. If I had just found out you’ve been sleeping with my wife, people should be asking a lot more questions. If I don’t know that, then there’s no causal link between these events.
- noiv 4y ago
  > Such as causal chaining. Doesn't that imply knowing which of two events happened first? Imagine, after your bat accident I took liberties with your wife as a revenge? Please pardon my 17th century's line of thought :)
  - Rhapso 4y ago
    It really depends on how fast both of you are going relatively to each other and who is asking the questions (and how fast they are going...)
  - hinkley 4y ago
    Which happened first can be in the eye of a third party observer versus a first party. it doesn’t matter which happened first, it matters what the observers saw and whether they can agree. The relativistic example here says that observers will never agree. If an event that I didn’t observe happened first, it didn’t influence my decisions. It might influence yours though, but when things get grey we give benefit of the doubt.
- threatofrain 4y ago
  If I communicate with you then that's enough to determine data causality, which is a weaker version of scientific causality. That does not mean that you necessarily shall do something as a result of my communication, so we shouldn't be talking in terms of you bonking someone with a bat as a result of receiving a communication. In scientific causality, A shall cause B to the degree to which A is explanatory for B.
  - hinkley 4y ago
    Most of us here are really trying to sort out bugs and data consistency issues. If I’m trying to figure out who deserves the last seat on the airplane or the last item on clearance or whether to charge you an overdraft fee, chronology doesn’t help that much, because I don’t really have one. I have a fiction that looks like one.
    - preseinger 4y ago
      "who deserves the last seat on the airplane" is not resolved by chronology, true, but that is not the question the question is "who reserved the last seat on the airplane" and that question is entirely resolved by chronology
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- preseinger 4y ago
  causality is about information, intent is about the semantics of that information causality is unrelated to intent
NHQ 4y ago
Time is not real, it is a measurement. Space is real. Einstein's times is a quantum model of change over space, but really only proves that where you stand is relative to where I stand, and our relativity changes if we move through space. As I have just proven, Einstein's relativity is really a confabulation of what is obvious, resulting in people getting lost in that model universe. It is only useful for taking measurements within that model, everything else is worshiping light, the speed of.
- noiv 4y ago
  If time isn't real, but space is - how real is spacetime?
  - NHQ 4y ago
    Spacetime is a colloquial term for a derivative calculation or projection which only applies within the model. It has also not proven very germane as a unit, or it would be used more like a unit, rather than as description of a picture. The term seems to relate to the rendering of space in the model via geometry, where the model is based on singularities, which are the antithesis of space, and so is the model. We experience space, but we only find singularities from within a model. That we pretend the relative speed of light is constant, and this proves black holes and big bangs, that is pseudo science taking a model beyond it's working boundaries, where it's calculation have no meaning; to wit, this is a physical analogue in optical aberration, where the rim of the lens is asymptotic refraction to the point of unreliable measurement (not a singularity, unless of course you model it as such, in the abstract). The real question is why so much energy is used staring at model aberration. The "Uncertainty paradox" has everyone believe the model is real, and even ask the question "at what point does the model become real". The model is never real, and never becomes real, it stays a model forever. Whether the cat is dead or not is simply a measurement where, if you mistake the paradox for theory, you don't realize the probability of dead or alive given decay is nothing more than a measurement taken ex post facto, and not proof that the real world accord to the model.
- LegionMammal978 4y ago
  > Time is not real, it is a measurement. Space is real. In what particular way is space real that time is not? > Einstein's times is a quantum model of change over space, but really only proves that where you stand is relative to where I stand, and our relativity changes if we move through space. I think you might have misinterpreted the vocabulary: in the "principle of relativity", the word "relativity" refers to the relation between two coordinate systems, not the relation between two points in space. > As I have just proven, Einstein's relativity is really a confabulation of what is obvious, resulting in people getting lost in that model universe. All you have done is made assertions, without evidence or reasoning. You can certainly do that, but how is it supposed to prove anything? What is the argument?

by noiv 4y ago

hinkley 4y ago

Much of the rule of law is based on cause and effect. Most of the people who get hung up on time stamps are trying to reconstruct a chain of events over time. And like a lot of concurrency problems, the solution seems to be to solve a different problem instead. Such as causal chaining. We made an error here because we were aware of three facts but not aware of a fourth. The answer is wrong but the data is consistent. That’s important for finding bugs. It’s also important for establishing intent. If I bonk you with a bat, it might be an accident. If I had just found out you’ve been sleeping with my wife, people should be asking a lot more questions. If I don’t know that, then there’s no causal link between these events.

noiv 4y ago
> Such as causal chaining. Doesn't that imply knowing which of two events happened first? Imagine, after your bat accident I took liberties with your wife as a revenge? Please pardon my 17th century's line of thought :)
- Rhapso 4y ago
  It really depends on how fast both of you are going relatively to each other and who is asking the questions (and how fast they are going...)
- hinkley 4y ago
  Which happened first can be in the eye of a third party observer versus a first party. it doesn’t matter which happened first, it matters what the observers saw and whether they can agree. The relativistic example here says that observers will never agree. If an event that I didn’t observe happened first, it didn’t influence my decisions. It might influence yours though, but when things get grey we give benefit of the doubt.
threatofrain 4y ago
If I communicate with you then that's enough to determine data causality, which is a weaker version of scientific causality. That does not mean that you necessarily shall do something as a result of my communication, so we shouldn't be talking in terms of you bonking someone with a bat as a result of receiving a communication. In scientific causality, A shall cause B to the degree to which A is explanatory for B.
- hinkley 4y ago
  Most of us here are really trying to sort out bugs and data consistency issues. If I’m trying to figure out who deserves the last seat on the airplane or the last item on clearance or whether to charge you an overdraft fee, chronology doesn’t help that much, because I don’t really have one. I have a fiction that looks like one.
  - preseinger 4y ago
    "who deserves the last seat on the airplane" is not resolved by chronology, true, but that is not the question the question is "who reserved the last seat on the airplane" and that question is entirely resolved by chronology
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
preseinger 4y ago
causality is about information, intent is about the semantics of that information causality is unrelated to intent

NHQ 4y ago

Time is not real, it is a measurement. Space is real. Einstein's times is a quantum model of change over space, but really only proves that where you stand is relative to where I stand, and our relativity changes if we move through space. As I have just proven, Einstein's relativity is really a confabulation of what is obvious, resulting in people getting lost in that model universe. It is only useful for taking measurements within that model, everything else is worshiping light, the speed of.

noiv 4y ago
If time isn't real, but space is - how real is spacetime?
- NHQ 4y ago
  Spacetime is a colloquial term for a derivative calculation or projection which only applies within the model. It has also not proven very germane as a unit, or it would be used more like a unit, rather than as description of a picture. The term seems to relate to the rendering of space in the model via geometry, where the model is based on singularities, which are the antithesis of space, and so is the model. We experience space, but we only find singularities from within a model. That we pretend the relative speed of light is constant, and this proves black holes and big bangs, that is pseudo science taking a model beyond it's working boundaries, where it's calculation have no meaning; to wit, this is a physical analogue in optical aberration, where the rim of the lens is asymptotic refraction to the point of unreliable measurement (not a singularity, unless of course you model it as such, in the abstract). The real question is why so much energy is used staring at model aberration. The "Uncertainty paradox" has everyone believe the model is real, and even ask the question "at what point does the model become real". The model is never real, and never becomes real, it stays a model forever. Whether the cat is dead or not is simply a measurement where, if you mistake the paradox for theory, you don't realize the probability of dead or alive given decay is nothing more than a measurement taken ex post facto, and not proof that the real world accord to the model.
LegionMammal978 4y ago
> Time is not real, it is a measurement. Space is real. In what particular way is space real that time is not? > Einstein's times is a quantum model of change over space, but really only proves that where you stand is relative to where I stand, and our relativity changes if we move through space. I think you might have misinterpreted the vocabulary: in the "principle of relativity", the word "relativity" refers to the relation between two coordinate systems, not the relation between two points in space. > As I have just proven, Einstein's relativity is really a confabulation of what is obvious, resulting in people getting lost in that model universe. All you have done is made assertions, without evidence or reasoning. You can certainly do that, but how is it supposed to prove anything? What is the argument?