yes, you can say that but phrase it like this, ~~>reality is a system of energy transferring itself from moment to moment]. there's a quote from cloud atlas that might help, i'll post it. "Belief, like fear or love, is a force to be understood as we understand the theory of relativity, and principles of uncertainty. Phenomena that determine the course of our lives.These forces that often remake time and space, they can shape and alter who we imagine ourselves to be, begin long before we are born, and continue after we perish. Our lives and our choices, like quantum trajectories, are understood moment to moment, at each point of intersection, each encounter, suggest a new potential direction. [Cloud Atlas] " " I understand now that boundaries between noise and sound are conventions. All boundaries are conventions, waiting to be transcended. One may transcend any convention, if only one can first conceive of doing so. [Cloud Atlas] " no, i'm saying the opposite, time or "times ' are very real. that was/is the point of the lucy quote. in a sense, time is nothing but a decaying energy from use of energy[that may not make sense for some] of a physical entity. higgs basically says because of mass it creates the decaying energy from use with physical entities. energy is able to reproduce efficiently without mass. remember, energy is f***ing everything. so is positive and negative. and phasing
Thanks for the qualification about probability. Yes I agree, the irreversibilities we commonly speak of in thermodynamics are mere matters of probability rather than true logical certainty. I've always been a bit uncomfortable with Eddington's formulation, as it seems to me our perception of time is due to something more basic than entropy increase. But I also take Farsight's point that measurement of time seems inextricably linked to motion. I can't quite decide, yet, whether that is profound or trivial.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's profound. And it isn't my idea. The idea that "time is change" goes back to ancient Greece. Check out Presentism and see A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein by Palle Yourgrau. Note though that time exists like heat exists. It's a cumulative measure of motion rather than an average measure. But just as you can't literally climb to a higher temperature, you can't travel to a different time.
So you do not think space-time is real? That time is not a dimension where events happen in? But rather, an emergent property of motion? Can you explain why?
i once again suggest ignoring farsight. it's obvious he's pretending once again. he does not have the experience nor understand, let alone the knowledge.
He seems to think that time has no course of its own, preferring instead to believe in the outdated concepts of ancient Greece as opposed to modern day Physicists. Lol. Time exists alright. Otherwise the magnitude of a speeding object could have no influence over the time it takes to reach from point A to point B. LOL!
Where are the closed time-like curves, and how would you form one? The Minkowski illustrations used in time travel articles, show a timeline curving from vertical to horizontal, accompanied by a tipping light cone. 1. There is no explanation of how the object, now moving instantaneously (any distance in zero time), manages to reverse its direction in time. 2. In traveling a geodesic around the earth, you return to a different place, at a different time. In a dynamic world, changes are occurring during the trip. The world does not assume a suspended animation while the observer moves. 3. Since Minkowski manipulated the time variable into a spatial variable (ct), solely for mathematical reasons, the reference to the "spacetime diagram" is misleading. Though we know the "time" aspect results from the use of clocks for measurements, he (intentionally or not) clarifies the interpretation of "time" as a spatial measurement, which is what it has always been, based on its purpose and history. Things happen, because there are energy sources, and the universe is dynamic. Time, for the human observer, is not a causal factor, but a recording of events. To paraphrase Einstein in his 1905 paper: "the time of an event is the simultaneous reading on your local clock". That is a correlation of the event of interest to a clock event. The clock does not measure time, it meters time, in the same manner as a metronome, it sets a standard rhythm. The clock can be used in the process of measuring time (or intervals of activity) just as a ruler is used to measure spatial intervals. The unit of measure for the clock is arbitrary as it is for the ruler. If my clock is regulated to run twice its normal rate, there isn't any increase in available time, therefore my clock is NOT measuring an independent flow of time. I do not accomplish more work for the day. Doubling the clock rate, and doubling the divisions on the ruler, only increases precision of measurement. If there are no events, how do you know what time it is?
So the question seems to be this then Do there exist "separations" which are independent of our ability to measure them? It seems to me to be a profound philosophical question, outside the arena of science. For now, I would prefer to say that if it cannot be measured, then am I entitled to deny its existence, which is a trivial science question
His TV show actually describes building a time machine by running a train around the earth 7 times a second.
Time is emergent because it is the objects , in the macro and micro enviroment which has movement because of their very nature , meaning all the physical properties they have , for example , spin , magneticfields , vibration etc. which leads to movement which leads to beings being aware of this movement , which leads to duration , which leads to this time concept Time orders our lives , go to work , pick up the children , apointments etc . This is where we get the brainwashing of time as being a seperate dimension , a real physical dimension , time has no such quality to it , at all
In other words motion exists without time? Time is not needed? How do you explain the decrease in the rate of time as measured by clocks due to greater speed and stronger gravitational fields? I would love to see someone prove Einstein wrong.
Reality is reversed in time during symmetry. Of course it is. Without time there would be no cause. Time is real.
Having reflected on this a bit, I'm coming down against the idea that the link to motion is profound. If we measure time, we need something that changes. Motion is a form of change - change in position in space. But there are other types of change that can be used to mark out intervals of time. And once you say that to measure time you need observable change, then it starts to seem a mere truism, doesn't it?
You'll probably reproach me but I really want to say something completely dumb right ATM. We could intuitively say time changes regardless of motion or whatever and that it is intrinsic as spacial dimensions - so long as space exists, time exists. I like this cause, Farsight, argues that time doesn't exist - that it is an illusion. So I wonder if I could use the same reasoning to argue that 'space' doesn't exist and is merely an illusion? (I also had spacetime and singularities on my mind.)
Yes I toyed with that idea as well, but found I couldn't see how to do anything much with it……except, perhaps, insofar that nobody views space as a "thing", and in my view nobody views time as a "thing" either. It just happens that the expressions we use for time; "passing", "going by" etc; borrow the imagery of motion, and of course (literal) motion has to be of some"thing" physical that we can observe to move. This is hardly surprising when one considers the other leg of the discussion, which is that observation of the "passage" of time often involves observing motion. So perhaps you and I might say that neither space nor time are "things", but that does not mean that neither of them exist. Would that be fair? I think I read, somewhere in this correspondence, someone hotly contending that time doesn't pass, no, no: on the contrary, it continues. My reaction is, yes, well, whatever, because to me the two, when applied to time, have the same meaning.
