Does time exist?

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Sibilia, Sep 28, 2015.

  1. Asexperia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    196
    I have opened a thread titled "The perfect clock" to
    read the others' opinion in SciFi & Fantasy.

    PS: This is the reply #1000.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,988
    I am interested in this connection too. I'm not interested in another thread about Sci Fi & Fantasy; I want to see how putting a label on an ineffable quality leads you to conceive of "the construction of a perfect clock". Just describe how they relate.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Asexperia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    196
    It was just a coincidence; but time is magnitive no matter
    how they measure it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,528
    What is magnitive , of time ?

    How is time based on magnatics ?
     
  8. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,516
    Explain again magnitive because I didn't think I have the hang of it yet

    From my understanding, which I explain each post l, time does not exist and there is nothing to measure.

    From
    The Invention of Time and Space by
    Patrice F. Dassonville

    I post this part

    The second cannot be the duration of 9,192,631,770 cesium cycles, because the
    second is defined precisely in terms of cesium cycles. The conceptualization must necessarily be one-way:
    9,192,631,770 CESIUM CYCLES (artifact + phenomenon) ) ONE SECOND (concept)
    Therefore, a consistent definition of the second is:
    THE SECOND IS A UNIT CORRESPONDING
    TO 9,192,631,770 CESIUM CYCLES
    This definition of the second does not go against the provisions of the
    Conferences of 1967 and 1983, including reference to cesium frequency; but its
    wording has the advantage of not using the word duration. In addition, this defi-
    nition emphasizes that the international unit of time has no physical existence.
    In 2011, a British clock reached an accuracy of 2.3 10−16 s, which is an error of 1 s/138 million years. It illustrates the considerable role of high technology and state-of-the-art physics.

    The leap second between solar time and atomic time requires periodic resyn-
    chronization: if time was a physical component of nature, such questions would obviously not arise. The accuracy of measurements is determined by the accuracy of clocks; but the accuracy also depends on the rigor of the definition of the second.
    Terrestrial rotations, terrestrial revolutions, and the cesium oscillations, produce observable and measurable cycles, but they do not produce time; even if a misleading field effect suggests the idea of an arrow of time

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Asexperia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    196
    Michael 345:

    Time is the measure of duration. Time is mathematical.
    Magnitive (imperceptible) is the reason by which you think time doesn't exist.
     
  10. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,516
    More from

    The Inventionof Time and Space by
    Patrice F. Dassonville

    I post this part

    Defining a first word with a second word, and then defining the second word with the first, you have a truism. Time is often defined by duration and duration is frequently defined by time; these are fallacies, because time and duration denote the same concept, and they are both expressed with the same units.

    What is measured between two moments is AGE and age is not TIME

    The PAST non existent
    The FUTURE non existent
    Only NOW is in existence
    NOW does not have any THICKNESS between PAST and FUTURE

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Asexperia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    196
    I have explained the difference between TIME and DURATION.

    Time is the measure of duration.
    Duration is the permanence of things in reality.
     
  12. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,516
    No
    Duration is AGE

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,988
    It's bad enough to have the OP bringing his own special assertions - don't you start.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,988
    No, you have opined your idea of the difference.
     
  15. Asexperia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    196
    No. Duration = age
     
  16. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    No.
    (The clue is that they're two separate words).
     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  17. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,516
    While do assert duration is age I have not made it in isolation

    Will send more information when not so busy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,988
    That discussion has already sailed.
     
  19. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,516
    Hoist the Jolly Roger

    Patrice Dassonville then puts forward a general definition of time, as “a concept
    corresponding to what separates two states of a system”. He then examines the
    etiology of aging, distinguishing between biological and chronological age. The
    physical inexistence of time is linked to the fact that time has no source. The author then ends the chapter with some examples taken from different areas of theoretical physics, such as general relativity and quantum physics, to show how time is difficult to manipulate, and difficult to define rigorously


    The Invention of Time and Space

    We have 7 seas to sail

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Jordan.S Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    The fun begins when we realize that there is no reason why the outcome of any particular definition of time should behave the way we expect it to behave from everyday experience, no matter how hard we try to come up with the best definition. This is what happened with Relativity, but that gets boring quickly. Time is a psychological construct meaning that it does not exist immediately in perception.
     
  21. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,528
    To your last sentence , go on ..
     
    Jordan.S likes this.
  22. Jordan.S Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    Why not give it a try

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Jordan.S Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    What i meant was that the connection between science and everyday experience is the interesting part...Now as some other people pointed out, time is a psychological construct, i.e. it doesn't exist immediately in perception. You have the ability to see a computer, touch a tree, think a thought ...however, you don't have the ability to see, touch, smell, or think time. You have to piece together memory and current perception to get the idea of time. Any operational definition of time will also have to compare a before and after.
     

Share This Page