🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 2, 9:30 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> An oversimplified but still valid argument:
>
> If the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light
> source, that is, if Einstein's 1905 light postulate is true, then time
> is an illusion and people should procrusteanize their intuition
> accordingly:
>
> http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june232009/einstein_lessons_dj_6-2...
> "For those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past,
> present and future is only an illusion, however tenacious" - Albert
> Einstein
>
> http://www.geekitude.com/gl/public_html/article.php?story=20050422141...
> Brian Greene: "I certainly got very used to the idea of relativity,
> and therefore I can go into that frame of mind without it seeming like
> an effort. But I feel and think about the world as being organized
> into past, present and future. I feel that the only moment in time
> that's really real is this moment right now. And I feel [that what
> happened a few moments ago] is gone, and the future is yet to be. It
> still feels right to me. But I know in my mind intellectually that's
> wrong. Relativity establishes that that picture of the universe is
> wrong, and if I work hard, I can force myself to recognize the fallacy
> in my view or thinking; but intuitively it's still what I feel. So
> it's a daily struggle to keep in mind how the world works, and
> juxtapose that with experience that [I get] a thousand, even million
> times a day from ordinary comings and goings."
>
> http://www.evene.fr/celebre/actualite/2005-annee-einstein-114.php
> "Les articles parus en 1905 dans la revue 'Annalen der Physik'
> révolutionnent non seulement le petit monde de la physique, mais aussi
> la perception commune de grands concepts tels que le temps, l'espace
> ou la matière. Enfinils auraient dû car si les théories einsteiniennes
> sont aujourd'hui admises et célébrées partout dans le monde
> scientifique, si une grande partie de la recherche fondamentale a pour
> objectif de les développer, le commun des mortels continue cependant à
> parler du temps, de lespace, et de la matière comme il le faisait au
> XIXème siècle. C'est ce que déplore Thibault Damour, physicien et
> auteur dun ouvrage passionnant intitulé 'Si Einstein métait conté',
> dans lequel il dresse un portrait scientifique du prix Nobel. "Loin
> davoir été assimilées par tout un chacun", écrit-il, "les révolutions
> einsteiniennes sont simplement ignorées." Car les découvertes dont on
> parle dépassent de très loin - comme souvent - les préoccupations
> purement scentifiques. Il est, de fait, encore extrêmement complexe et
> ardu de comprendre la notion de temps non pas comme un flux, un
> absolu, mais comme un relatif, pouvant ralentir selon la vitesse de
> lobservateur."
>
> If time is not an illusion, as the philosopher of science John Norton
> suggests, then the speed of light does depend on the speed of the
> light source, that is, Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-uni...
> "General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
> Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
> depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
> when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
> age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
> floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
> relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
> Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
> Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
> right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
> Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
> instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
> time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
> it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
> malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
> stars, planets and matter."
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
> John Norton, 1 Mar 2009: "A common belief among philosophers of
> physics is that the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely
> an illusion. The idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward
> fact that our best physical theories of space and time have yet to
> capture this passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know
> what illusions are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no
> sign of being an illusion....Following from the work of Einstein,
> Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful
> conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most
> perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-
> dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and and all other
> processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd
> sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns
> out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are
> differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow
> captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage
> of time. There are temporal orderings. We can identify earlier and
> later stages of temporal processes and everything in between. What we
> cannot find is a passing of those stages that recapitulates the
> presentation of the successive moments to our consciousness, all
> centered on the one preferred moment of "now." At first, that seems
> like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it would seem, a failure of our
> best physical theories of time to capture one of time's most important
> properties. However the longer one works with the physics, the less
> worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a happy and contented
> believer that passage is an illusion. It did bother me a little that
> we seemed to have no idea of just how the news of the moments of time
> gets to be rationed to consciousness in such rigid doses.....Now
> consider the passage of time. Is there a comparable reason in the
> known physics of space and time to dismiss it as an illusion? I know
> of none. The only stimulus is a negative one. We don't find passage in
> our present theories and we would like to preserve the vanity that our
> physical theories of time have captured all the important facts of
> time. So we protect our vanity by the stratagem of dismissing passage
> as an illusion."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

It is a valid question because time is not energy.

In other words time is not light.

Physical attraction or physical repulsion naturally physically attracts
\repulses physical light ( energy ). But many people confuse this
'bending' ( attracting\repulsing ) of energy as the bending of non-
physical time.

-Josh.