Not metering TIME You are settling up a extremely accurate SYNCHRONIZATION system to prevent drift occurring between equipment Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Okay. I think this is the Nikola Tesla/Walter Russell notion that time is non existent. The dynamic gravity stuff. Unsure. I didn't click the link, just guessing. Edit: nope just more on the dilation with acceleration stuff I think.
I think that's a rather strange claim to make, since it seems obvious - to me at least - that everything doesn't happen at once. What's going on between one thing happening and the next thing happening, if not time? Seems like some people will go to extraordinary lengths to deny the existence of something that everybody experiences all the ... time. No? Then you've got a point of disagreement with phyti, right there. I'll leave you to sort that one out with him. Interesting that you use the word "synchronisation" there. I see the sequence "chron" right there in that word, and the etymology from the original Greek implies that the word refers to time - something that you deny exists. How can the concept of synchronisation mean anything if time doesn't exist, as you claim?
Semantics - not worth going there My understanding is that time does not exist The is no "inbuilt inherent" unit of time in the Universe What is commonly called TIME is a measurement of change and is more correctly called AGE the units of which have been arbitrarily chosen The PAST is non existent The FUTURE is non existent Only NOW exist Try to obtain a copy of The Invention of Time and Space by Patrice F. Dassonville Technical and very detailed in places but good explanations as to why time does not exist Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I just find it interesting that you can't actually discuss what clocks do without importing the notion of something you say doesn't exist. What does that suggest to you? Doesn't it worry you just a bit? Based on what? That's shifting the goalposts. Units are human inventions. There's no inherent unit of length in the universe, either. Are you going to deny that space exists, then, as well? The words "change" and "age" also pre-suppose a concept of time. Try explaining what it means for something to change without importing ideas about time. Seriously, give it your best shot. I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you're saying the past isn't the same as the present - that the past is not happening now - then I'd say that's obviously true. The past references events that happened before now. On the other hand, it seems to me that past events have led to the current situation we observe, which suggests that the past exists in some important sense. But you're merely asserting, not putting an argument, so far. Can you do better? Again, the future isn't happening now. That's obvious. But I expect I will experience tomorrow. Does that mean that tomorrow exists? Or that it will exist in the future? My present experience is that past tomorrows have always come along. I have empirically tested that assertion, up until yesterday. That kind of makes things like memory and planning a joke, if it's true. Do you really believe that? Can you summarise the main argument(s), very briefly? Up to this point, as I say, you've merely been asserting rather than putting a case.
Time certainly does exist, the debate with regards to time is whether it is fundamental or not. It stops everything from happening together, while space separates everything, and the two can be interchangable... "The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality". — Hermann Minkowski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space Change occurs in time...time does not occur because of change. Yet when I go outside tonight [after the clouds clear] I will see Alpha Cenaturi as it was 4.5 years ago. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I once read a book entitled "The Big Bang Never Happened" written by Eric J Lerner, who was a proponent of the Electric/Plazma universe. He was shown to be wrong. In the very distant future, a few hundred billions of years hence, and approaching trillions of years, we will be no more, Earth, the Sun, the stars will all be gone or just about gone, and BH's will be close to all having evaporated via Hawking Radiation. Even in that cold dead epoch, time will still pass, and space will still exist. A big Crunch or recollapse is highly unlikely due to the observed acceleration of expansion.
I agree but it does come with some serious backing You seem to have grasped the idea - CONCEPTS - in the mind do not have physicality and are not detectable by any means. Not shifting goal post, explaining If you are talking about a very very very large region with a very very very low pressure zone commonly referred to as space, sure such a region exist PAST is non existent - did exist as a previous NOW The FUTURE is non existent - will exist as future NOW (in all probability) NOW exist that's it, the whole Universe exist only in NOW Please you are better than this As mentioned very detailed and hard to summarise Yes asserting but was probably hoping to give food for thought instead of summary dismissal I will put more as I am sure there will be replies But can I request the dictionary meaning of EXIST be checked Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Edit - on holiday so not fully following my own post as I type
Fortunately, Einstein did not let silly philosophical thoughts, like some of those going on here, derail him from discovering his wonderful special relativity ... he just defined time as what clocks measure, period.
Although I agree with everything that JamesR said, perhaps I can rescue some of Michael's pride...... Much of modern physics - by no means all of it - takes place in an environment called a "4-manifold". You don't want to really know what this is (I promise you) except that the "4" refers to the number of coordinates required to locate any point in it. The first three of these are easy - \(x,\,y,\,z\), the familiar coordinates of the 3-plane. The fourth we may define as \(ct\), where \(t\) is an arbitrary monotonically increasing variable, and \(c\) is an arbitrary constant, such that \(x,\,y,\,z,\,ct\) all have the same dimensions. I doubt I am alone in wanting to call this "spacetime",but "4-manfold would be just fine (and arguably more mathematically correct)
The most accepted and correct opinion among theorists is that time exists. There are very few who deny the existence of time. Time is the duration of things, between a start and an end, in a certain physical state or situation. In abbreviated form: ...... duration s ---------------- > e The magnitive time exists , is measurable and imperceptible directly.
From the FORWARD of the book The Invention of Time and Space by Patrice F. Dassonville What Patrice Dassonville proposes in this book is an exhilarating ride through our changing notions of space and time since human thoughts were first recorded, with an in-depth mastery of the related historical, philosophical, scientific, and technical aspects. Viewed as a whole, this fascinating and intriguing discussion throws light on both general issues and detailed questions, and in a nutshell shows that time and space do not exist by themselves, but are instead purely intellectual constructions of humankind, built up through a lengthy process extending roughly over the last 5000 years of human history. My bold - note ideas and concepts do change and Fortunately, Einstein did not let silly philosophical thoughts, like some of those going on here, derail him from discovering his wonderful special relativity ... he just defined time as what clocks measure, period is not sacrosanct Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Changes occur. ✓ That's IT So? If they are looking at us ditto 4.5 years ago the then NOW stuff was in existence It no longer exists The mere details of the distance between us and the fact that light (information) is not instantaneous does not mean TIME exist It does mean the AGE of the light arriving (and ditto for light going the other way) is 4.6 years (and remember that is OUR definition) I understand Alpha Centuri define it as 1.5489 xgtes, but they are funny like that Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That idea doesn't work in a relativistic universe. The problem is that if I move at some constant velocity relative to you, then I will no longer share your notion of NOW. For example, take two events, A and B, that are occurring simultaneously for you in your NOW. Unless those two events are happening at exactly the same place in space, then for me, in relative motion, one of those two events will occur earlier than the other one. In other words, the same two events take place at two different NOWs for me, even though they take place at just one NOW for you. In this context, saying that the past and future don't exist isn't really a viable position to take.
OK Consider the totality of the Universe From god's rocking chair outside of the Universe Tell me what you see please Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
At the outset? Could there be a frame of reference then that would be outside the Universe but with no known way to actually observe what happens? From that point of view might the new universe seem to disappear in an instant ? If that FOR was equipped with tachyonic technology it might even follow progress perhaps.
THOUGHT EXPERIMENT In mind sit outside Universe so the totality of the Universe is in your field of vision Come back when done and have image of Universe in mind Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Fantasize about something impossible in principle, then hope somehow to use that fantasy to 'prove the logic' of one's illogical position? Smoke it less and less, until, over time, quit the habit for good.